new hampshire’s state personnel development grant proposal · new hampshire’s state personnel...
TRANSCRIPT
New Hampshire’s
State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
Submitted to:
Office of Special Education Programs
U.S. Department of Education
CFDA # 84.323A
Submitted by:
New Hampshire Department of Education
Bureau of Special Education
August 31, 2012
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..……….. I Introduction and Welcome to the Reviewers………………………………………..……. 1 Needs…………………………………………………………………………………..…….. 2
Graduation Rates………………………………………………………………..……… 2 Drop-Out Rates………………………………………………………………..……….. 3 Transition Needs………………………………………………………………..………. 4 Parent/Family Engagement…………………………………………………………….. 7 Extended Learning Opportunity Needs………………………………...………………. 9 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………. 11
Significance………………………………………………..……….……….……….………. 13 Significance of Proposed Framework and Partners………………………………..…….. 15 Significance of Initiatives……………………………………………………….……….. 20 Summary………………………………………………………………………..……….. 25
Project Design……………………………………………………………………………….. 26 Personnel…………………………………………………………………………..……….. 44
New Hampshire Department of Education Staff……………………………………….. 46 Project Partners………………………………………….……….……….……….……. 48 Evaluation ………………………………………………..…….……….…………..…… 55
Adequacy of Resources…………………………………………………………………….. 56 New Hampshire Department of Education ….……….……….……………………….. 56 New Hampshire Parent Information Center….……….……….……………………….. 57 Keene State College….……….……….……….……….……….………………..……... 58 Monadnock Developmental Services – Regional PD Intermediary……………………. 60 Stafford Learning Center – Regional PD Intermediary………………………………… 61 QED Foundation……………………………...………………………………………… 63 Institute on Disability………………………...………………………………………… 64 Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc. ……………………………………..……… 65
Management Plan……………………………………………..…..……….……….………. 67 Diversity of Perspective………………………………………..……….……….………. 67 Management Structure…………………………………………..……….……….…….. 69 Time Line/Person Loading Charts……………………………………………………… 71
Evaluation…………………………………………………………………………..……… 81
Table of Tables and Figures Table 1: NH Graduation Rates for All Students and Students with Disabilities….……….… 3 Table 2: NH Dropout Rates Disaggregated by Subgroup……………..……………….…… 4 Table 3: Post-Secondary Outcome by Percent (SPP Indicator 14 Data) ……………….…… 5 Table 4: Post-Secondary Outcome by Numbers (SPP Indicator 14 Data) ……………….… 6 Table 5: Parent Involvement Survey Data..….…………….……………….……………….. 7 Table 6: Degree of Transition Planning..….…………….……………….…………………. 8 Table 7: Family Perceptions on Transition Planning..….…………….……………….……. 9 Table 8: Management Plan – Objective 1..….…………….……………….………………… 71 Table 9: Management Plan – Objective 2….…….…..….…………….……………….…… 72 Table 10: Management Plan – Objective 3….…….…..….…………………………….…… 73 Table 11: Management Plan – Objective 4….…….…..….…………….……………….…… 74 Table 12: Management Plan – Objective 5….…….…..….…………….……………….…… 76 Table 13: Management Plan – Objective 6….…….…..….…………….……………….…… 77 Table 14: Management Plan – Objective 7….…….…..….…………….……………….…… 78 Table 14: Management Plan – Goal 1, Person Loading Chart..….…………….……………. 79 Table 16: Evaluation Plan – Objective 1….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 83 Table 17: Evaluation Plan – Objective 2….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 84 Table 18: Evaluation Plan – Objective 3….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 85 Table 19: Evaluation Plan – Objective 4….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 87 Table 20: Evaluation Plan – Objective 5….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 88 Table 21: Evaluation Plan – Objective 6….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 89 Table 22: Evaluation Plan – Objective 7….……….…..….…………….……………….…… 89 Table 23: Stage of Implementation Assessments….…….…..….…………….……………… 92 Figure 1: NH SPDG Framework….…….…..….…………….…………………………….… 14 Figure 2: Management Structure….…….…..….…………….……………….………..……. 68
Appendix A
Acronyms.……….………….……..….……………...……….……….…….……………….99
References.……….………….……..………………...……….……….…….……………….101
Sample LEA Commitment Form.……….………….……..….…...……….……….……..…103
Logic Model.……….………….……..….…………...…….……….…….………………….105
Extended Learning Opportunity Fidelity Checklist….………….……..….…….……….…..107
Implementation Driver Assessments….………….……..….…...………….……….……..…110
Appendix B
Support Letters….………….……..………………...……….……….…………………..….118
Appendix C
Resumes….………….……..………………...……….……….…….……………………….155
PAGE # REQUIREMENTS
45 – 46 (a) Projects funded under this notice must make positive efforts to employ and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities in project activities. (See Section 606 of IDEA)
46 (b) Applicant must describe steps to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, its program for students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries with special needs. (See Section 427, GEPA)
Budget Narrative
(c) Projects funded under these priorities must budget for a three-day Project’s Directors’ meeting in Washington, D.C. during each year of the project.
Budget Narrative
(d) The applicant must budget $4,000 annually for support of the State Personnel Development Grants Program Web site currently administered by the University of Oregon (www.signetwork.org)
57
(e) If a project receiving assistance under this program authority maintains a Web site, the applicant must describe how they will include relevant information and documents in a form that meets a government or industry-recognized standard for accessibility
15 – 55
Significance &
Project Design
(f) Use evidence-based (as defined in this notice) professional development practices that will increase implementation of evidence-based practices and result in improved outcomes for children with disabilities;
44 – 55
Project Design
(g) Provide ongoing assistance to personnel receiving SPDG-supported professional development that supports the implementation of evidence-based practices with fidelity
44 – 55
Project Design
(h) Use technology to more efficiently and effectively provide ongoing professional development to personnel, including to personnel in rural areas and to other populations, such as personnel in urban or high-need local educational agencies (LEAs)
1 – 43
Needs &
Significance
(i) State Personnel Development Plan that identifies and addresses the State and local needs for the personnel preparation and professional development of personnel, as well as individuals who provide direct supplementary aids and services to children with disabilities
Budget Narrative
Support Letters
56-66
(j) Must award contracts or subgrants to LEAs, institutions of higher education, parent training and information centers, or community parent resource centers, as appropriate, to carry out the State Personnel Development Plan
65 - 66
Budget Narrative
(k) Not less than 90 percent of the funds the SEA receives under the grant for any fiscal year for the Professional Development Activities
i
New Hampshire 2012 State Personnel Development Grant (CFDA 84.323A) Abstract
The New Hampshire Department of Education 2012 SPDG proposal is targeted to increase the number of students with disabilities graduating from high school who are college and career ready, through the implementation of evidence based transition practices. Our ambitious proposal targets four strategies to achieve this goal: (1) increasing student competency through increased use of Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs), (2) enhanced transition planning and increased transition activities and opportunities, (3) greater family – school engagement, and (4) sustaining practices through our state Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs), regional professional development intermediaries, a transition Community of Practice, and the use of technology. These strategies are aimed at school districts, parents, regional professional development intermediaries, Vocational Rehabilition, IHEs, and other community members.
Innovative academic strategies, such as the increased use of Extended Learning -Opportunities, are critical in NH’s competency-based educational system. A recent study by the University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute found that ELOs were very successful in assisting students to earn a sufficient number of credits to graduate, but were being used primarily for elective credit and not core courses. Concurrently, ELOs were not used as often by students with disabilities, nor as a tool for increasing academic proficiency and graduation rates. We will work with the QED Foundation to establish a state-wide network of trainers to expand and sustain the scope of ELOs through professional development.
College and career readiness is not only an academic endeavor. Schools, students, and families must plan and work together to ensure successful transitions. Our proposal will expand NH from a compliance focus to a deeper, more comprehensive evidence-based approach to transition planning. Concurrently, transition activities such as taking courses on university campuses, internships, work experiences, career and technical programs, etc. must be more available, particularly in the more economically distressed areas of the state. We will build on the work from our second SIG to diffuse the successful practices established during that shortened three year grant period. These activities will be conducted collaboratively with our parent partners at the New Hampshire Parent Information Center, regional intermediaries, and other established professional development providers so that activities are sustained over time.
We have used the SPDG Performance Measures and implementation science strategies to develop this proposal. All activities were considered and developed in the context of the key elements of competency, organizational, and leadership drivers necessary for successful implementation. Information gained from each driver will be used to inform and improve the implementation of effective practices.
The expected outcomes of the NH SPDG proposal are (1) increased graduation rates for students with disabilities (SPP Indicator 1), (2) decreased dropout rates (SPP Indicator 2), (3) improved degree and quality of family school engagement related to transition (SPP Indicator 8), and (4) sustained use of evidence-based transition practices (SPP Indicators 13 and 14) introduced through the NH SPDG work.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
1
INTRODUCTION & WELCOME TO THE READER
The New Hampshire Department of Education is proud to submit our fourth State Personnel
Development Grant (SPDG) proposal. Our goal is to increase the number of students with
disabilities and/or who are at risk of dropping out that are college and career ready in New
Hampshire through implementation of evidence based transition practices related to Extended
Learning Opportunities, best practice, evidence-based transition planning, and enhanced family
engagement strategies.
Our proposal addresses Absolute Priority 1 through our project design, management plan,
and evaluation plan, all developed to address the specific implementation drivers addressed by
the first two SPDG Performance (GPRA) measures. This involves professional development on
the use of evidence-based interventions, through a thoughtful stage-based implementation
process. Each of our objectives is based on an organizational driver and we have proposed
measures of implementation stages and driver implementation. Most of our partners have been
trained in implementation science, evidenced through their knowledge and use of practice
profiles for identifying evidence-based practices and developing evaluation tools.
We address Absolute Priority 2 by ensuring all SPDG activities are linked to existing state
plans and with existing state PD providers. Our objectives are all designed to support NH’s State
Performance Plan (SPP) and to provide data for the SPP Annual Performance Report. Keene
State College, local LEAs, and our Parent Training and Information Center (PTI) were involved
in the planning process. It is expected that 100% of resources will be spent on PD. We are not
applying for the Competitive Priority.
We appreciate your time in reviewing this proposal. We have provided a table of contents
and page references throughout the proposal to facilitate your review. Our appendices contain a
list of acronyms, references, our logic model, sample forms, resumes, and support letters.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
2
NEED FOR PROJECT
In this section, we display data that demonstrates state-level needs and an analyses of the data
to explain the barriers in the education of students to be college and career ready in New
Hampshire including students with disabilities. We discuss our strategies to address these
identified barriers in the Significance and Project Design sections of the proposal. These data
come from a variety of sources within the New Hampshire Department of Education (NH DOE),
including NH’s Annual Performance Reports (APR) for the State Performance Plan (SPP). The
data focus on graduation and dropout rates, SPP indicators related to post-secondary transition
planning and outcomes, as well as parent/family engagement, specifically related to post-
secondary transition.
Graduation Rates
The 2009-10 school year was the first year NH was able to report a four-year cohort
graduation rate (students are assigned to a cohort based on when they first enter grade 9) for all
students, including the disaggregated population of students with disabilities using data from the
NH Consolidated State Performance Report. This report identifies the number of students
(including students with disabilities) who graduated in four, five, and six years with a regular
high school diploma. These graduation data are the same data reported for Elementary and
Secondary Act (ESEA) purposes (Bureau of Information Services, Division of Program Support,
NH DOE). As shown in Table 1, the 2009-10 NH graduation rate for students with disabilities
was 15% less than that for all students. The graduation rate was also 4% short of the SPP goal of
a 75% graduation rate.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
3
Table 1: NH Graduation Rates for All Students and Students with Disabilities
Year All Students Graduation Rate t Special Education Graduation Rate*
2009-10 85.9% 71.6%
2010-11 86.6% Not Available ** t http://www.education.nh.gov/data/documents/cohort_report_09_10.xls t http://www.education.nh.gov/data/documents/cohort_report_10_11.xls * FY 2010 SPP APR, Indicator 1 ** Per guidance from OSEP states are required to report a data lag for high school graduation and dropout data. These data will be available with the February 1, 2013 APR submission. Drop-Out Rates
Similar to graduation calculations, the method for calculating drop-out rates was changed in
the 2008-09 school year. Beginning in 2009-10, the Department reported the NH annual drop-out
rate, using the same methodology as in the past, as well as a new cohort rate defined by the New
England Secondary School Consortium (NESSC) in parallel with national definitions. The new
cohort model includes all students during the past four years who were expected to graduate at
the end of the 2009-10 school year. This analysis results in a more accurate picture of students
who were in NH schools during the past four years
The other important factor is on July 1, 2009, NH enacted Chapter 193.1 (formerly Senate
Bill 18), mandating school attendance until the age of 18. For 2009-10, "dropouts" are
considered early exiters who exited high school during the year but did not graduate (with a
standard, non-standard or other high school diploma or Adult Education Diploma), or are not still
enrolled in high school and did not receive a GED.
The data in Table 2 reflect drop-out rates for all NH students, and students with disabilities.
The NH DOE reports drop-out rates for all students, while a separate calculation for students
with disabilities is required for the SPP APR. While the dropout rates seem low, they are
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
4
assumed to be indicative of the change in the compulsory age requirement to age 18. The
graduation rates presented in Table 1 present a less positive situation than the dropout data
suggest.
Table 2: NH Dropout Rates Disaggregated by Subgroup
Annual Dropout Rate* APR Data
2008-09 1.7% 2.3%
2009-10 0.97% 0.67%
2010-11 1.19% Not Available **
* http://www.education.nh.gov/data/dropouts.htm ** Not publicly reported until February 1, 2013 in APR. Transition Needs
SPP Indicator 13 requires states to report on the percent of youth with IEPs aged 16 and
above that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are annually updated and
based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services, including courses of
study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary goals, and annual IEP
goals related to the student’s transition services’ needs. There also must be evidence that the
student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be discussed and
evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was invited to the IEP
Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached the age of
majority.
To address this requirement, NH DOE monitored 10 student files at 22 districts for a total of
220 files reviewed during 2010-11. These districts were selected because they were the only
remaining school districts who had not been monitored for this Indicator in the previous SPP
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
5
years. Of the 220 IEPs reviewed, only 112 (or 50.9%) of the IEPs met the minimum
requirements for this indicator. State compliance for 2009-10 was 47.0%.
Indicator 14 reports on the post-secondary outcomes for students one year after graduation.
Table 3 below provides the data for the last two SPP APR reporting years. The measure is
operationalized as the percent of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had IEPs in effect
at the time they left school, and were:
A. Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school.
B. Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high
school.
C. Enrolled in higher education or in some other postsecondary education or training
program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of
leaving high school.
Table 3: Post-Secondary Outcome by Percent (SPP Indicator 14 Data)
Year A B C
2009-10 43.2% 70.2% 82.6%
2010-11 54.4% 75.7% 87.9%
Scale: A, B, and C are described just before Table 3
Students who exited high school are surveyed in the June, a year after they graduate. The
data reported in Table 3 for 2010-11 are representative of only 13.4% or 305 students who
returned the post school outcomes survey out of the 2,275 students considered “leavers” by
OSEP, so care must be taken in interpreting the data. We think these data may over-represent
positive outcomes. The data in Table 3 are disaggregated and reported on by number in Table 4.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
6
Table 4: Post-Secondary Outcomes by Number (SPP Indicator 14 Data)
Year Higher
Education
Competitive
Employment
Other PS
Education/Training
Other
Employment Other
2009-10 147 92 14 28 59
2010-11 166 65 4 33 37
We also know that transition-related needs across the state vary by region. Due to our work
with SIG 2 from 2005-07, there is an established transition infrastructure in two regions of NH.
However, due to the shortened grant period of the second SIG (3 years) as compared to other
SIG/SPDGs (5 years), we were not successful in the two other regions of our state, particularly
the northern region. In this region, employment and education opportunities are often more
limited due to the vastness of this region, so it is critical we continue the work we started
previously. As will be discussed later in the proposal, personnel from the regions with more
established infrastructures will serve as coaches to their neighboring regions.
New Hampshire’s Developmental Services System conducted a study of employment
outcomes for adults (21 – 64 years old) with developmental disabilities in New Hampshire. The
study reported a 36% employment rate in 2010 and 2011, meaning only one in three adults with
a developmental disability was employed. This trailed the national employment rate for the same
population by 3%. The average number of hours worked per week was 9.39 in 2010 and 9.07 in
2011. An exciting trend is that the number of employed adults with developmental disabilities
has been increasing, yet our enthusiasm is lessened by the finding that the number of hours
worked is decreasing (Bureau of Development Services, 2011 and 2012).
Data from the NH Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation (NHVR) over the last three years
show some limited success for transitioning students with disabilities. There were 178 successful
employment outcomes versus 117 unsuccessful employment outcomes (after a plan was
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
7
developed) during this time period. However, almost 1,300 students referred to NHVR are still
seeking their employment or educational goal.
Parent/Family Engagement
Indicator 8 addresses the degree to which parents with children receiving special education
services report that schools facilitated parent involvement as a means of improving services and
results for children with disabilities. Surveys were sent to NH parents of all school age children
(Kindergarten to Age 21) with disabilities (29,190). A total of 5,267 (or 18%) parents of children
with disabilities completed the survey.
Table 5: Parent Involvement Survey Data
Year Total
Response
Number of Responses at
or Above the Standard
Percent of Responses at or
Above the Standard
2009-10 5,375 2,438 46%
2010-11 5,267 2,566 49%
In 2010-11, there was a 3% increase in the statewide percentage of parents who indicated that
schools facilitated parent engagement as a means of improving special education services (see
Table 5). This represents continued significant improvement (18%) over the past four years from
32% to 50% in parent ratings on this parent involvement indicator. When asked if they were
given information about options their child will have after high school in preparation for their
child’s transition planning meeting, slightly less than two-thirds of parents (63%) replied
affirmatively. There has been an increase in the affirmative responses to this Indicator over the
past four years of survey administration.
PTI Parent Survey Data
To gather further data on family knowledge and concerns related to post-secondary
transition, the New Hampshire Parent Information Center (PIC – NH’s PTI) surveyed families of
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
8
children between the ages of 14 and 21. There were 43 responses to the survey. Families were
asked to whether certain transition planning activities occurred. Just over half of the respondents
reported that transition planning was part of the last IEP meeting and that there were transition
goals on their child’s IEP (Table 6). Only 16% of the respondents reported that representatives
from adult agencies were at the last IEP meeting and/or information about local adult agencies
were provided. We further disaggregated these data by age. 38% of the families of children
between the ages of 17 and 21 reported that representatives from adult agencies were at the last
IEP meeting and/or information about local adult agencies were provided. Regardless of which
measure we use, this is an area of great need.
Table 6: Degree of Transition Planning % Yes
Was planning for transition from HS to post-HS as part of the IEP meeting? 51%
Were there transition goals on your child’s IEP? 53%
If the IEP team determined it necessary, were representatives from any adult agencies
in attendance at the 2011-12 meeting? 16%
Was information about local adult agencies provided to you at the 2011-12 IEP
meeting? 16%
Table 7 presents the average scores for parents’ perceptions of the transition planning process
and their confidence of postsecondary success for their child. Average scores for each item were
close to a ‘2’, on a four-point scale, indicating minimal involvement in IEP meetings, a feeling
that schools are not preparing students to transition, and little confidence that their child will
achieve the goal of postsecondary education or employment.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
9
Table 7: Family Perceptions on Transition Planning Mean
Please rate your child’s level of involvement in his/her IEP meeting.1 2.33
I feel that my child’s school is helping me prepare for my child’s transition from HS.2 2.20
If further schooling after high school is an IEP goal for my child, I am confident that
he/she will achieve the goal of postsecondary education. 2 2.42
I am confident that my child will be able to find and maintain employment after HS.2 2.40 1 1 = Not Actively Involved, 2 = Minimally Involved, 3 = Involved, 4 = Very Involved 2 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, 4 = Strongly Agree
Extended Learning Opportunities Needs
In 2005, the NH State Board of Education adopted a policy to allow increased flexibility
regarding time and place for high school learning, allowing for Extended Learning Opportunities
(ELO) for credit outside of the classroom and school day. ELOs have become a central
component of the NH DOE strategy to provide New Hampshire high school students with
engaging and rigorous personalized learning experiences not typically found in the traditional
classroom.
With support from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation (NMEF), the NH DOE
implemented a three-year Supporting Student Success through ELOs Initiative, which began in
January 2008. This initiative provided substantial financial support and training and embedded
coaching by QED Foundation (see QED Foundation in Adequacy of Resources section page
63) to four ELO pilot sites, facilitating development of school-level systems to provide students
of all types with the opportunity to experience ELOs. The University of Massachusetts Donahue
Institute conducted a comprehensive 18-month evaluation of the initiative, identifying six
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
10
specific needs to improving the ELO system in NH. They are listed below. More information
about ELOs and how the NH SPDG will address them is presented in the Significance section.
1. Initially, ELO pilot schools lacked key infrastructure, tools, and experience required to
implement high-quality ELOs. The ELO Initiative built a foundation for success through
targeted support. Absent this support, ELOs may not be well implemented or successful.
2. The ELO coordinator is central to ELO system development, implementation, and quality
assurance. ELOs require new systems, community partnerships, training, and extensive
facilitation. Lacking a designated coordinator, these tasks are unlikely to be accomplished.
3. ELO activity demonstrates a tremendous emphasis on the use of ELOs for elective credit.
Pursuit of core credit through an ELO appears to be a more complex undertaking. In fact,
strategies to meet the requirements of core classes in academic subject areas through ELOs
remain in a formative stage.
4. Practice shows fluidity in the roles of ELO coordinator, community partner, and overseeing
teacher. This often appears to facilitate implementation and allows schools to capitalize on
limited resources. The flexibility to customize the role of adults in the ELO to the context of
the individual project is essential, but appropriate only insofar as standards for a rigorous
learning experience are met.
5. Schools have adopted different models for ELO implementation, particularly in relation to
the role and time afforded to teachers to support ELO implementation. These models reflect
differing school-based resources and approaches to the use of teacher and student time.
While no one model has proven most effective, those that integrate ELOs closely into
teaching practice may have the most potential for sustainability.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
11
6. Internal and external constraints may complicate ELO implementation and should be
carefully considered in the development of ELO implementation strategies. Specifically, the
lack of foundation conditions required to implement ELOs, leadership discontinuity, and
limited community partner options should be identified and accounted for in the
implementation planning phase.
Summary
The data presented are mixed. While NH’s drop-out rate for students with disabilities seems
low, it does not correlate well with data that suggests that a little more than one of four NH
students with disabilities does not graduate in four years. A generally made assumption is that
the mandatory attendance policy is forcing some students to remain in school for longer than
four years. These students often need alternative routes to graduation and need to be engaged in
developing those alternative routes earlier in their high school careers.
SPP data are also mixed. Related data indicate that only about half of the IEPs reviewed
between 2009 and 2011 met the minimum expectations set forth by the U.S. and NH DOE.
Indicator 14 data appear to be positive, but the sample is too small to have confidence in those
findings. NH’s Developmental Services System statewide study of employment outcomes for
adults (21 – 64 years old) with developmental disabilities (DD) reported only a 36% employment
rate for adults with DD for the last two years.
Only 50% of the parents responding to the Indicator 8 survey reported satisfaction with the
degree to which schools facilitated parent engagement as a means of improving special education
services, with less than two-thirds of parents reported that they were given information about
options their child will have after high school in preparation for their child’s transition planning
meeting. Family members reported on a just completed PIC survey minimal involvement in IEP
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
12
meetings, a feeling that schools are not preparing students to transition, and little confidence that
their child will achieve the goal of postsecondary education or employment.
Positive data include the development of sustainable regional structures in two regions of the
state, which will be used to facilitate systems change in regions lacking this support. The early
development of ELOs suggests promise in providing an alternative route to earning credits
necessary to graduate in four years. The need and opportunity for ELOs to address core courses’
competencies and expanded use by students with disabilities was emphasized by the Donohue
Report.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
13
SIGNIFICANCE
This section is divided in two parts. We begin by providing an explanation of the significance
of our proposed framework and partners we will use to achieve our proposed outcomes. Then we
provide evidence for the significance of the initiatives we have proposed. This section provides a
link between the identified needs discussed in the previous section and the specific strategies
outlined in the next section, Project Design.
Our goal is to increase the number of students with disabilities and/or who are at risk of
dropping out that are college and career ready in New Hampshire through implementation of
evidence based transition practices. This will be accomplished by increasing the capacity of
existing regional PD organizations to provide professional development in their regions, as
evidenced in the four outcomes listed below.
1. To increase and expand the use of Extended Learning Outcomes in all regions of NH.
2. To increase the use of best practice, evidence-based transition planning in all regions of
the state.
3. To enhance family engagement in New Hampshire schools in all regions of the state.
4. To sustain professional development beyond the grant funding period.
To understand our proposed framework, some NH history is needed. Our second State
Improvement Grant (SIG) from 2005-07 had one goal that focused on postsecondary transition.
That cycle of SIGs limited funding to three years and the shortened time impacted full
implementation of the project goals. However, the capacity to provide transition PD was
developed in two regions of the state during the second SIG and that work has been sustained.
Personnel from the Monadnock Center for Successful Transitions (MCST) and the Strafford
Learning Center (SLC) continue to provide transition PD and opportunities in their regions. They
will serve as
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
14
NH LEADERSHIP TEAM
> Evidence Based Transition Planning and
Family Engagement Training
> Extended Learning Opportunities
> Person Centered Planning (RENEW)
> Transition Resource Portal
NCES
SLC
GSIL
MCST
5 LEA’s
5 LEA’s 5 LEA’s
5 LEA’s
FIGURE 1: NH SPDG Framework
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
15
mentors and demonstration sites to personnel working in two additional regions (NCES for
North Country Region and GSIL for Central Region) under this new proposal. This is the
foundation NH will build upon in implementation of the new proposal.
As shown in our model on the previous page, the NH Leadership Team (discussed in greater
detail in the Management Plan section) will oversee the implementation of a number of transition
practices, including:
• Extended Learning Opportunities
• Evidence Based Transition Planning and Family Engagement Training
• Student involvement in the IEP process
• Earn and learn vocational training programs
• Work-based learning, e.g., job shadows, internships
• Independent living skills and career study (i.e., ACES)
• Project RENEW (Person Centered Planning)
• Family Centered Transition Planning for Students with ASD (Autism Spectrum
Disorders)
Significance of Proposed Framework and Partners
Implementation Strategies
Our project design was developed using an implementation science framework and the
criteria outlined in the SPDG Performance Measures. SPDG Performance Measure 1 was
designed to ensure evidence-based professional development was implemented in SPDGs. OSEP
identified five specific drivers (four competency drivers and one organizational driver) crucial to
successful professional development: Selection, Training, Coaching, Performance Assessment,
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
16
and Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention. All proposed objectives and
activities have been organized to address these drivers. To ensure the drivers don’t work as
independent silos, feedback and “feedforward” loops are necessary to facilitate communication
across project partners and efforts.
The work of SISEP has suggested that increased innovation fluency can be enhanced through
the development and use of practice profiles. Practice profiles are a process for identifying the
critical components of an innovation or intervention. Each critical component identifies a gold
standard of implementation, acceptable variations in practice, and ineffective practices and
undesirable practices. We will use practice profiles as a process for first identifying the critical
implementation components and then second to develop instruments to measure the fidelity of
implementation (how the PD is provided) and fidelity of intervention (to what the degree is the
intervention being used properly in schools).
Core components of good implementation include the development and support of school
and district leadership teams. However, rather than develop new leadership teams, our regional
trainers/coaches will work with participating LEAs so that access to existing school and LEA
teams are facilitated so there is ongoing knowledge and support of the evidence-based transition
planning and practices. Concurrently, regional trainers/coaches will work with LEA leadership to
see that school and district-level planning needed for successful implementation is coordinated
with other existing school and LEA planning processes.
Community of Practice
A July 2012 Government Accounting Office (GAO) report studied how improved federal
coordination could lessen challenges for students with disabilities in their transition from high
school. The IDEA Partnership’s National Transition Community of Practice (CoP) was cited as a
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
17
positive example of how quality coordination was influencing student outcomes in support of
transition. The National CoP focuses on joint efforts among state and local agencies to
coordinate and improve outcomes for youth with disabilities in transition.
In 2004, New Hampshire joined the National Transition CoP. This involvement led to the
formation of the New Hampshire Community of Practice Coordinating Group (CoP), which was
fostered and supported by NH’s second SIG. The CoP is currently made up of approximately 54
individuals from across state, local and community levels throughout New Hampshire who
represent a wide array of experience and expertise. The CoP remains active and relevant today,
rich with person resources but with limited financial resources. It is a source for transition
information in NH and conducts an annual conference each year.
Activities of the CoP have included: increasing youth engagement by learning about and
connecting youth to what already exist, in particular models/programs that promote individual
self-advocacy, independence and leadership; creating and disseminating a structure for
developing local CoPs and connecting them to state and national CoP; continuing to promote
best practices in the area of transition to life after high school, focusing on family engagement,
transition planning, and extended learning opportunities; and planning and implementing
statewide transition summits. We will build on this success by having the CoP serve in an
advisory capacity to the NH SPDG (see Management Plan beginning on page 67 for more
details).
Regional Professional Development Intermediaries
Most activities will be implemented regionally, through one of four regional intermediaries.
While fidelity of implementation is important and will be a vital component of our work, we also
expect a degree of regional variation in implementation of practices between our very rural,
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
18
sparsely populated northern region and the densely populated urban communities in the southern
part of the state. By increasing the capacity of two regions started under SIG 2 and developing
the transition infrastructure of the two regions with less capacity, we increase the likelihood of
these efforts sustaining themselves.
In 2004, NH participated in the “Innovative State Alignment Project” project of DOL’s
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP), which had determined that that access to
transition services for youth is hampered in practice by the fact that workforce development and
education systems, and the necessary income support, health, housing, assistive technology,
social service, and transportation service systems, are often poorly connected, developed, and
integrated. It also determined that the two major underlying causes of these problems are the
differing missions, traditions, and service models of the multiple providers of transition services
(each with distinctive eligibility and service requirements and limits for youth) and the multiple
and complicated funding streams that support them which vary significantly in their mandates,
expected outcomes, allowable activities, and capacities. ODEP sought to address these
underlying causes directly by developing community-based intermediary organizations that
would permanently connect all community transition service providers. These intermediaries will
provide the institutional mechanism that enables all providers in a region to blend their funding
and missions and fill in service gaps needed to provide the integrated system of services and
supports to youth and employers (following evidence-based principles) youth with disabilities
need to successfully transition from school to adult life.
This multi-year systems change effort was initially successful is developing intermediaries
that covered the geography of NH, but was cut short by federal funding cuts. As previously
noted, NH was able to build on and enhance this nascent intermediary development effort under
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
19
the second SPDG in two areas of the state, providing support and guidance to add training and
coaching to the intermediaries’ roles, but was unable to solidify the intermediaries in more rural
areas of the state.
Local Education Agencies
Each regional intermediary will provide professional development to at least five LEAs in
their region over the course of the project. This will allow us to directly impact 20 of NH’s 81
LEAs responsible for grades 9-12. Other LEAs will be indirectly impacted by learning from their
neighbors who receive the professional development, participating in the NH Transition CoP,
and by accessing the Transition Resources Portal. PD provided to the 20 LEAs will be based on
needs assessments, but are expected to fall into one of the five PD components discussed on the
previous page.
Institutions of Higher Education
Concurrent to the regional professional development delivery, there will be a coordinated set
of activities with our Institutions of Higher Education (IHE). Keene State College (KSC) greatly
increased their capacity to provide in-service and pre-service professional development on
transition during SIG 2. Keene State faculty and staff will serve as consultants to the NH
Leadership Team (LT), developing strategies so that other IHE teacher preparation programs
have strong in-service and pre-service professional development opportunities. It is expected that
IHE teacher preparation programs will enhance their existing coursework to better reflect best
practice transition planning and resources.
Parents and Families
The NH Parent Information Center (PIC), NH’s PTI, has been an active partner in all NH
SIG/SPDG work, but were never provided sufficient resources to have a significant impact.
Resources have been increased in this proposal so the PTI has two part-time transition specialist
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
20
who will work directly with NH DOE SPDG staff, the regional PD intermediaries, and other
project partners. Parent training will focus on increased parent-school engagement and on
increased knowledge of transition planning and opportunities. Parent training will be closely
coordinated with all SPDG professional development so that it is not a separate, isolated activity.
The PTI will also be involved in school training and coaching on parent-school engagement.
Significance of SPDG Initiatives
Extended Learning Opportunities
As mentioned in the Needs section, in 2005, the NH State Board of Education adopted a
policy to allow increased flexibility regarding time and place for high school learning. This
changed NH’s emphasis from a traditional school structure of education tied to Carnegie units, to
a focus on students’ becoming self-directed, active learners through rigorous, authentic learning
experiences (Gfroerer, 2009). This resulted in Extended Learning Opportunities (ELO), which
can lead to credit for educational opportunities outside of the classroom and school day. ELOs
have become a central component of the NH DOE strategy to provide high school students with
engaging and rigorous learning experiences not typically found in the traditional classroom.
Initial funding of ELO infrastructure development by the Nellie Mae Education Foundation
ended in 2011. The University of Massachusetts Donahue Institute conducted a comprehensive
18-month evaluation of the initiative, identifying six specific needs to improving the ELO system
in NH discussed in the previous section (see pages 9 - 11).
ELOs are developed in response to a specific student interest and curricular need. They
should be well-planned and important educational experiences that occur outside the classroom.
Support may come from a teacher or a community partner, but always with oversight from a
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
21
qualified teacher. Established curriculum standards must be adhered to and an agreed upon level
of competency must be met for academic credit to be awarded. The Donahue Report found that
many, though not all, ELOs met these criteria, and that all four pilot schools generated a
significant volume of ELOs that were widely embraced by a diverse array of participating
students, teachers, and community partners. Overall, student, faculty, school administrator, and
community partner sentiment suggests that ELOs provide value to students and should continue
to be offered.
Our proposal seeks to specifically address two of the needs, but indirectly infuse a greater
level of resources and reach across the state. Working closely with the QED Foundation, we will
develop regional cadres of trained ELO coaches, supported through their regional PD
intermediaries. QED specializes in transformational learning design and practices which focus on
developing and supporting learning- and learner- centered communities and has provided PD on
ELOs for 3 years. ELO coaches will work with LEA curriculum specialists and core content
experts in their regions to begin to establish ELO opportunities for core academic courses. In a
similar manner, the ELO coaches will work with local Directors of Special Education, transition
specialists, teachers, and parents to increase the use of ELOs by students with disabilities. For
students with disabilities, ELOs can serve both as a means for demonstrating competency to earn
sufficient credits to graduate, and for opportunities to learn and develop skills necessary for
successful postsecondary transitions.
NHVR has partnered over the past two years with our partners at the Stafford Learning
Center on the development of Earn and Learn programs. These vocationally oriented programs
award core content credit for ELOs, while providing students with needed vocational training
and other community based experiences. A similar program, ACES: A Chance to Experience
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
22
Success provided almost 40 students with disabilities a two week residential program to explore
career paths and how to live independently. This program is also supported by NHVR.
Evidence Based Transition Planning
As evidenced in our 2010 SPP APR, our minimal compliance rate was only 47% for youth
with IEPs aged 16 and above that includes appropriate measurable postsecondary goals that are
annually updated and based upon an age appropriate transition assessment, transition services,
including courses of study, that will reasonably enable the student to meet those postsecondary
goals, and annual IEP goals related to the student’s transition services’ needs. There also must be
evidence that the student was invited to the IEP Team meeting where transition services are to be
discussed and evidence that, if appropriate, a representative of any participating agency was
invited to the IEP Team meeting with the prior consent of the parent or student who has reached
the age of majority.
Our concern is not only is this compliance rate too low, but that best practices/evidence-
based transition planning is not occurring if compliance is barely achieved. SPDG resources will
allow us to provide more intensive and targeted PD on transition planning, while also creating
and utilizing existing web-based materials that can be sustained through our Transition Resource
Portal.
New Hampshire is a local control state and as a result cannot mandate any particular program
or practice. A number of practices have been used by various LEAs in the state, including the
Transition Outcome Project (TOPS) (O’Leary, 1999) and the Taxonomy for Transition
Programming (Kohler, 1996). The National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center
(NSTTAC) conducted a cross-walk between Kohler’s Taxonomy, NASET National Standards &
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
23
Quality Indicators, and the Guideposts for Success (ODEP, 2005), displaying many similarities
among models and frameworks. They are discussed after the review of TOPs.
TOPS was designed to assist LEAs in meeting the transition requirements of IDEA; evaluate
the effectiveness of transition services to students and families through the IEP process; provide
training and resource materials on the transition process for educators, administrators, adult
agency personnel, parents and others; and improve graduation rates and post school outcomes of
students with disabilities. The instrument requires schools to score themselves on 30 indicators,
then develop an action plan based on the results. Further information on TOPS can be found at
http://tinyurl.com/TOPS-Checklist.
The Kohler Taxonomy is a framework of secondary education practices associated with
improving post-school outcomes for youths with disabilities. The effective practices are
organized into five major categories: 1) student-focused planning, 2) student development, 3)
interagency collaboration, 4) family involvement, and 5) program structure. While this model
has been used extensively for 16 years and has been promoted by OSEP, additional support for
the significance of the framework is that the NSTTAC uses the Taxonomy as the framework
around which their professional development and review of the literature for evidence-based
practices are organized.
The National Alliance for Secondary Education and Transition (NASET) is a coalition of
organizations with a shared interest in promoting quality transition. Some members include: the
Council for Exceptional Children, Council of Chief State School Officers, the National
Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Education Association, National
Governors Association, PACER Center, and TASH. NASET developed a set of national
standards and quality indicators that are research-based benchmarks that articulate quality
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
24
secondary education and transition services for all youth. The NASET National Standards &
Quality Indicators are organized into five key areas: 1) schooling, 2) career preparatory
experiences, 3) youth development, 4) family involvement, and 5) connecting activities.
The Guideposts for Success was created by the National Collaborative on Workforce and
Disability/Youth, with funding from Office of Disability Employment Policy at the Department
of Labor in 2005. The Guideposts are based on an extensive literature review of research,
demonstration projects, and effective practices covering a wide range of programs and services.
Although NH cannot mandate a transition planning model the NH SPDG will use the Kohler
Taxonomy of Transition as our larger framework of secondary transition practices to draw from
with a specific focus on using the Ed O’Leary TOPS model as our assessment tool to be used
with LEAs. The TOPS model will be used to assess what LEAs have in place for student driven
transition planning with implementation of specific evidence based transition practices to address
the areas of need identified during the LEA’s TOPS action planning process.
Parent/Family Training
The NH PTI uses a variety of evidence-based strategies in providing training and technical
assistance including the National Center Special Education Accountability Monitoring
(NCSEAM), Karen Mapp and Ann Henderson, Dr. Joyce Epstein of the National Network of
Partnership Schools, Harvard Family Research, and the National Parent Teacher Association
(PTA). These resources and research have been chosen as they support and exemplify the core
components of a systemic family engagement plan and include purposeful connections to the
transition planning process.
Furthermore, according to Harvard Family Research and the National PTA there are three-
core district-level principles needed for systemic family engagement: district-wide strategies that
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
25
promote family engagement linked to student learning, building school capacity (local level) and
engaging all families in student learning. A core component of any family engagement system is
professional capacity (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, and Easton, 2010). The NH PTI is
well poised to collaborate with the other partners in this proposal to support and infuse these
principals in the project’s work.
Summary
Utilizing a framework based on implementation science and existing SPDG performance
measures, we will work closely with our IHE, LEA, other state and community agencies, and
parent partners to implement this work collaboratively and successfully. The 2005-07 NH SPDG
did not fully achieve one of its goals of increasing transition capacity across the entire state. It
did, however, support the development of two regional transition PD structures that have
sustained and remain active today. Building on that initial success, we feel strongly that we will
be successful in the development of similar structures in regions lacking this level of PD in this
area. Similarly, our earlier work with KSC for pre- and in-service transition PD provision has
sustained and grown. Using their experience and expertise, we will work with other NH IHE’s to
build their capacity to better support LEAs in their region.
All activities have been developed with attention paid to sustainability. This includes work
related to transition planning, post-school outcomes, and parent engagement, plus new work in
the area of ELOs. The Transition Resource Portal coordinated by KSC will be expanded to be a
more, fully accessible site for transition PD and resources. While the NH DOE staff will play a
large initial role in early PD, the expectation that the work will be continued by cadres of
coaches supported by the regional PD intermediaries, IHEs, and the PIC. The NH Transition
CoP, now almost seven years old, will continue to play a strong grassroots role in providing
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
26
direction and guidance to the NH SPDG. In addition, the NH SPDG will submit proposals each
year to showcase our grant practices on ELOs, evidence based transition practices including
family engagement, etc. at the NH Transitions CoP’s Annual Summit. The NH Transition CoP
Annual Summit is the only NH statewide conference for training, collaboration, networking, and
information, focused on post-secondary outcomes for students. It makes sense to support and
demonstrate our efforts to a larger audience at this existing NH event.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
27
QUALITY OF PROJECT DESIGN In this section, we present our project goal, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved. Project
activities were designed by project partners, known throughout NH and nationally known for
their expertise in postsecondary transition. A listing of each activity associated with each
objective, as well as when it will be accomplished and who will perform the work, is included in
Table 15 (pages 79-80) in the Management Plan section.
(ii) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will
successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed activities constitute a coherent, sustained program
of training in the field.
(v) The extent to which the proposed project will establish linkages with other
appropriate agencies and organizations providing services to the target population.
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to
improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for
students.
The criteria above have been discussed in the Needs and Significance sections. As discussed
in the Significance section, our SPDG activities are connected to existing state priorities and are
implemented to support or expand existing programs, rather than replicate. We have designed
activities with NH IHEs to integrate SPDG activities into pre-service coursework so that
graduating students are better prepared to implement evidence-based transition practices when
they are working in schools. We have strong linkages with NHVR, the NH PIC and other related
agencies to facilitate implementation.
Framework
This section of the proposal is designed to provide evidence of our efforts to implement an
effective and efficient professional development delivery system. To do so, we aligned our
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
28
objectives with the first SPDG Performance Measure (PM 1). This allows us to explain how we
will address the following implementation drivers: selection, training, coaching, performance
assessment, and facilitative administrative support/systems intervention that constitute effective
and efficient professional development, as measured by SPDG PM 1.
Activities proposed to achieve each objective include: (1) selection strategies to ensure high
quality personnel are delivering PD and LEAs/schools are ready and committed to receiving and
implementing the PD model; (2) high quality training designed on the results of the needs
assessment; (3) on-going coaching based on needs identified in training evaluation and continual
consultation; (4) data collection to inform administrative decision making on the fidelity of
implementation of training and coaching and the fidelity of implementation of the intervention
within the schools; and (5) training and coaching of administrators on how to support the
implementation of SPDG strategies/practices.
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed
project are clearly specified and measurable.
(iv)The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge
from research and effective practice.
Goal: To increase the number of students with disabilities and/or those at risk of dropping
out of school who are college and career ready in New Hampshire through implementation
of evidence based transition practices.
As part of NH’s ESEA Flexibility Waiver request, the NH DOE recognized that college and
career readiness requires more than students simply achieving higher content expectations. It
requires an expanded definition of college and career readiness, to include those content, skills,
and dispositions students will need to succeed beyond high school, consistent with the national
and international research of experts such as David Conley and Linda Darling-Hammond
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
29
(http://www.education.nh.gov/accountability-system/outline.htm). The NH SPDG proposal
offers seven objectives designed to increase the capacity of regional PD intermediaries, state and
community agencies, LEAs, schools, and students and their families so that all students are
college and career ready. Strategies include the expansion and diversification in the use of
Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs), more thorough and intensive evidence-based
transition planning, more comprehensive implementation of family engagement practices, and
the enhancement of a statewide transition coaching network.
The organizational structure of the NH SPDG is described in more detail in the Management
Plan section (beginning on page 67). To understand our project design, here is some background
of the decision making system or structure that will be in place. Fiscal and programmatic
responsibility lies with the NH DOE SPDG Management Team (MT), made up of DOE
personnel responsible for overseeing post-secondary transition activities in the state. The New
Hampshire Community of Practice Coordinating Group (CoP) is serving as the State
Transformative Team in an advisory capacity for the NH SPDG. This diverse group of transition
stakeholders has sustained a strong presence in state, local and community levels throughout
New Hampshire since 2004 as one of the initial Transition COPs developed under the IDEA
Partnership grant. The NH SPDG Leadership Team (LT) will be composed of representatives
from the DOE Management Team, the four regional PD intermediaries, Vocational
Rehabilitation, the NH Parent Training and Information Center, IHE’s, and the project’s external
evaluators. Four work groups (WG) composed of NH SPDG LT members will focus more
specifically on implementation of ELOs, transition planning and parent engagement, pre-service
opportunities at IHEs, and project evaluation.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
30
Over the next 12 pages, we provide a narrative description of proposed objectives and
activities. The specific tasks under each objective are described in Tables 8 - 14 in the
Management Plan and Tables 16 - 22 in the Evaluation Plan section.
Objective 1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on ELOs, transition planning,
and parent engagement, and to define the expectations and commitment of those receiving
PD. (Selection Driver)
This objective focuses on (1) the selection of organizations and personnel responsible for much
of the project implementation, (2) the selection of LEAs to participate in the professional
development, and (3) the selection of interventions and the degree to which they are determined
to be evidence-based.
The initial task of the NH LT will be to define grant roles and responsibilities for all SPDG
partners. Significant focus will be identifying the necessary organizational and leadership
capacity needed for regional PD intermediaries to coordinate and deliver PD in their regions, the
competencies required of trainers and coaches who will work for or with the regional PD
intermediaries, and the needs of LEAs within each region who will participate in SPDG
professional development. Organizational and personnel competencies will be identified by the
NH SPDG LT, with review by the NH Transition CoP during the first quarter of the project.
The regional PD intermediaries were discussed in detail in the Significance section (see
pages 17 - 18). We have received letters of commitment from each regional PD intermediary, but
those will be formalized through signed commitment forms/MOUs once our proposal is funded.
Each intermediary will identify/hire trainers in their region to provide training and coaching on
ELOs and evidence-based secondary transition practices. The NH PIC, responsible for
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
31
implementing family engagement activities, will follow the same process to provide training and
coaching in each region of the state. The Bureaus of Special Education and Vocational
Rehabilitation will each assign one staff member to work closely with each regional
intermediary.
The NH Leadership Team, working closely with each regional PD intermediary, will recruit
high schools in at least five LEAs in each of the four regions through a competitive application
process to include readiness, need and commitment to adopting ELOs and evidence based
transition planning practices. At least one LEA will be selected within each of the four regions to
come on board to participate in the NH SPDG activities in each of the five years of the grant and
continue receiving services within the grant period. Each LEA will identify at least one
individual to serve as a Transition Liaison to be the conduit between the state and regional
coaches and local personnel. This person could be someone already serving in a transition
capacity, a school or LEA administrator, guidance counselor, etc. $16,000 per year will be
budgeted to provide five LEAs each year with resources to support the implementation of SPDG
activities in their high schools. Participating LEAs will be expected to participate in each of the
PD streams (ELOs, evidence-based transition planning, and family engagement for educators).
The last component of this objective focuses on the criteria used to determine the evidence-
base of interventions to be used in LEAs and schools. Many of the interventions proposed
(ELOs, TOPS transition planning process, family engagement activities, etc.) have an established
evidence base. Yet additional interventions will be proposed to address unique regional/cultural
needs that may arise. We will review different assessments to assist us in determining the
evidence-based and potential impact of proposed instruments such as SISEP’s Intervention
Assessment Tool: A Discussion Tool For Assessing Evidence-Based Programs and Practices
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
32
(http://tinyurl.com/SISEP-EvidenceBase) and/or the What Works Clearinghouse’s Procedures
and Standards Handbook. (http://tinyurl.com/WWC-Standards-Handbook).
Objective 2: To increase and expand the use of Extended Learning Opportunities in all
regions of New Hampshire, by increasing the knowledge and skills of NH special and
general educators, related service personnel, and administrators in the design,
implementation with fidelity, and sustainability of evidence-based Extended Learning
Opportunities.
SPDG PM 1 criteria include: (1) accountability for delivery and quality monitoring of
training is clear, (2) trainings use adult learning principles and are skill-based, (3) outcome data
collected and analyzed of participants’ pre/post knowledge and skills, (4) trainers are trained,
coached, and observed, and (5) data are used to improve trainer skills and the content of
trainings.
The ELO WG will oversee the delivery and monitoring of ELO training, with input from the
NH SPDG LT. Staff from the QED Foundation (QED) will participate in the ELO WG in the
first year, while building the capacity of NH SPDG LT members to sustain the ELO work. To
address criteria #2, we proposed to use Dunst and Trivette’s Participatory Adult Learning
Strategy (PALS) as a model for training and coaching. PALS addresses three aspects of adult
learning: planning, application, and deep understanding. During the planning stage, the training
topic is introduced and illustrated so the learner is aware of the strategies to be introduced and
understands the applicability of the strategies to their work. In the application stage, participants
have the opportunity to practice the new strategies, as well as think through how to evaluate the
implementation of the strategy. Lastly, a deep understanding by PD participants requires
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
33
reflection and mastery of the new strategies. Participants reflect upon what they learned as a
means for developing a plan for next steps and have an understanding of what is needed for the
most successful implementation. The NH DOE will fund this training using in-kind Bureau funds
and make it available to all Bureau staff and key PD center partners in spring 2013. Data for
criteria 3 - 5 are discussed in greater detail in Objective 5 – Performance Assessment.
NH SPDG will partner with QED to develop, pilot, and expand ELO PD resources
(including training and coaching strategies, as well as fidelity and outcome instruments) for
identified trainers in the four regional PD intermediaries. Training will be based on the extensive
PD QED has provided on ELOs over the last 3 years, as well as ELO training materials
developed by the NH DOE, the NH Transition CoP, and MCST. Training will focus on the
breadth of ELO implementation, but will emphasize strategies that (1) increase the use of ELOs
as a means of better preparing students with disabilities for college and careers and (2) expand
the use of ELOs in core courses for all students. The Donahue Report (referenced in the Needs
and Significance sections) found ELOs being used frequently for English credit, but not in the
other core courses. The prevalence of ELOs was largely in physical education/health, career
technical education, and the arts. NHDOE would like to see ELOs utilized more for core content
areas such as math and science.
The first six months will be spent reviewing and revising existing training curriculum
developed by QED and the NH DOE. The curriculum will be finalized by June/July for a
July/August rollout and fall 2013 training. Once LEAs have been selected in each region (as
described in Objective 1), the regional PD intermediaries will recruit school teams (educator,
student and family, and community member) from their selected LEAs to participate in the ELO
training. The first training will occur in the fall of 2013 and the transition liaison from each LEA
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
34
will be trained. The training will also be attended by the regional trainers, NH DOE MT Team,
NH PIC staff, NHVR state leadership and regional counselors, and other key stakeholders.
Training will focus on the development, use, and evaluation of ELOs. QED will model the
strategies to be implemented by the SPDG trainers to be used in subsequent years. Annual
trainings will be held as new LEAs enter the project. QED will be available to coach SPDG
trainers, as discussed in detail in Objective 4.
Locally, LEA transition liaisons will conduct ELO training in their respective schools, with
the support of the regional PD intermediaries and a member of the NH SPDG LT. The LEA
transition liaison will model the techniques used in the QED training to maintain training
fidelity. Local VR counselors, parents, IHE personnel, and other community agencies will
participate in the local ELO training. NHVR has partnered the past two years with SLC on
development of Earn and Learn, a program that awards core content credit for ELOs, and SLC
has several programs that are using ELOs and alternative learning plans. We will work with
NHVR to explore options for furthering this work.
Objective 3: To increase the use of best practice, evidence-based transition planning,
including enhanced family engagement strategies.
As stated in the Significance section, NH is a local control state and the NH DOE is not in a
position to require usage of any particular model or framework. Some NH LEAs are using
various transition planning tools that they have deemed effective. As part of the SPDG
application process, LEAs will need to provide information on the current transition planning
approach and if they are using any specific instruments. This information will not preclude them
from participation, but rather help inform future professional development.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
35
The primary transition planning processes we will propose are the Transition Outcomes
Project (TOPS) (O’Leary, 1999) and the Taxonomy for Transition Programming (Kohler, 1996),
both of which are in some use already in the state. Each process involves the development of
action plans based on the gathered transition data.
It is our expectation that better quality transition plans will lead to greater use of evidenced-
based transition practices such as:
• Family engagement
• Student involvement in the IEP process
• Earn and learn vocational training programs
• Work-based learning, e.g., job shadows, internships
• Independent living skills and career study (i.e., ACES)
• Project RENEW (Person Centered Planning)
• Family Centered Transition Planning for Students with ASD
Other evidence-based transition practices will also be explored. In studying new potential
transition strategies, we will apply the process used to identify potential evidence-base transition
strategies as discussed in Objective 1 (see page 31).
The NH SPDG Transition Planning WG will develop and implement a PD plan that will
provide the structure for accomplishing this objective. This work group includes representation
from the NH DOE, the NH PTI, state and regional VR leadership, IHE representatives, the NH
Institute on Disability, and staff from regional PD intermediaries. The final professional
development plan will be reviewed by the NH SPDG LT with input from the NH Transition
CoP. Training conducted under this initiative will follow the same evidence-based training
strategies discussed in Objective 2 (see page 32).
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
36
There are three, related PD streams encompassed in Objective 3, all focusing on the use of
evidence-based transition practices to increase college and career readiness for students with
disabilities. This includes PD on (1) IEP development around transition planning; (2) family
engagement strategies, both to be delivered to school personnel in the selected LEAs; and (3) PD
directly to students and parents that incorporates information about ELOs, transition planning,
and parent/family engagement. During the first year of the project, PIC staff will test the
usability of their training and coaching model with families of children who participated in
KSC’s ACES Summer Program and those who participated in SLC’s Earn and Learn programs.
Using the TOPs model, we will increase the capacity of LEAs to support school IEP teams to
develop transition plans with the greatest likelihood of preparing students to be college and
career ready. Targeted training topics will include self-advocacy skills, soft skills curriculum,
assessing current prevocational/vocational skills curriculum, person-centered planning
(RENEW), writing measurable annual goal training, etc.
Central to the work of quality transition planning is family engagement. The NH PIC has
played a significant role in designing this proposal and has a clearly defined responsibility,
coupled with a budget sufficient to have an impact on NH students and parents. First the NH
PIC, in collaboration with other NH SPDG LT members, will develop and implement family
engagement training on secondary transition planning and practices for high school and LEA
personnel, VR counselors, and other state and community agency personnel. This will be part of
the transition planning training discussed in the previous paragraph. We feel that including the
PIC as part of our statewide training team will have positive impacts at the state and school level.
Second, the NH PIC will develop family engagement training related to ELOs, secondary
transition planning and practices (e.g. ACES program, Earn and Learn) for students and their
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
37
families in participating high schools. Training would be structured where parents and students
meet concurrently, but in separate groups, with separate curriculum. The training would
conclude with a joint session of students and parents/family members. The timing and
implementation of regional student and parent/family trainings will be determined locally. The
training may be in conjunction with existing school events, such as PTA, transition fairs, back to
school nights, etc. Attention will be paid to working with existing regional and local parent
organizations to build their capacity to sustain project efforts.
Objective 4: To sustain the use of ELO, transition planning, and parent engagement
strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching. (Coaching Driver)
Addressing the coaching standards in SPDG Performance Measure #1, below we outline the
accountability for the development and monitoring of the quality and timeliness of coaching,
with accompanying feedback provided to coaches. We also describe the multiple sources of
information to be used in providing feedback to LEA transition liaisons, while modeling
appropriate coaching strategies. Two levels of coaching will be used to ensure strategies are
implemented with fidelity. At the state level, experts in the area of ELOs, transition planning,
and family engagement will provide guidance and support to coaches working at the regional PD
intermediaries. Regional PD intermediary staff will serve as coaches to LEAs implementing the
ELO and transition planning/family engagement strategies.
Participating LEAs will develop PD action plans to focus on what is needed to implement
what they learn at the training, outlining the training, coaching, and any other resources needed
to successfully implement ELOs and transition planning/family engagement strategies in their
schools. These plans will guide the coaching they receive and from whom. Concurrently,
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
38
regional coaches will also develop coaching PD plans to guide the PD they need to be successful
coaches for their selected LEAs.
A coaching fidelity instrument will be developed by the NH SPDG LT to ensure coaching
practices are implemented as designed. The desired practices will be modeled in monthly
meetings between regional and state coaches and members. NH DOE Staff, QED, IHE
personnel, NHVR leadership and counselors, and PIC staff will be available to serve as state
coaches. Each of the four NH DOE staff that will work on the SPDG will be assigned to one
regional intermediary for consistency of coaching. The regional intermediary trainers/coaches
will meet with their selected LEA transition liaisons to review the LEA PD plans once a month.
These meetings will focus on training and coaching efforts conducted in the high schools by
LEA transition liaisons. Outside the monthly formal meetings, ongoing contact between regional
coaches and LEA personnel will be fostered through the use of e-mail, teleconferences, and
phone.
Regional coaches, working with LEA personnel, will also collect intervention fidelity data,
the degree to which the selected intervention was implemented as designed. An ELO checklist
has already been established for this purpose (see Appendix __). TOPS and the Kohler
Taxonomy will be used to assess the implementation of transition and family engagement
strategies.
At monthly state-level coaching meetings, up to four sources of data will be available for
review. This includes data from the coaches PD plan, the PD action plan, the coaching fidelity
protocol, and specific intervention fidelity data. Not all data will necessarily be available or
reviewed at each meeting. At a minimum, updates based on coaches and LEA PD plans will be
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
39
expected. Both levels of coaching meetings may be face-to-face, through Skype, web-
conferencing software, and or phone.
Objective 5: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to
support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level. (Performance Assessment
Driver)
SPDG Performance Measure #1 assesses five performance assessment criteria:
1. Accountability for fidelity measurement and reporting system is clear.
2. Participants are instructed in how to provide data to the SPDG Project.
3. Data are used to make decisions at LEA, regional, and SEA levels.
4. Implementation and student outcome data are shared regularly with stakeholders at
multiple levels.
5. Goals are created with benchmarks for implementation and student outcome data, and
plans are in place to share and celebrate successes.
During the first six months of the project, training, coaching, and intervention fidelity
instruments will be adopted and/or developed by the Evaluation WG, led by the external
evaluator, and approved by the NH DOE LT. The Evaluation WG will be responsible for
overseeing fidelity measurement and subsequent reporting (Criteria 1). The Evaluation WG will
train the regional coaches and other impacted staff on collection and use of implementation
(training and coaching) and intervention (ELO, transition planning, and parent engagement)
fidelity instruments (Criteria 2). To facilitate scheduling and minimize cost, we will use
technology in most evaluation PD, as begun during the current SPDG, including SharePoint,
GoToMeeting, Skype, Survey Monkey, and other technologies.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
40
Training and coaching implementation data will be collected at trainings and coaching
events between the state and regional coaches, as well as similar events with regional coaches
and LEA personnel. The implementation fidelity instruments will be developed based on the
PALS model discussed in Objective 2, ensuring all PD provides an opportunity for a topic to be
introduced and illustrated, for participants to practice and evaluate what they’ve learned, then
have time to reflect on the new information with consideration given to what it takes to master
the implementation of the strategy. Training fidelity data will be collected by at least three
members of the NH SPDG Management Team to obtain a diversity of perspectives on how well
training has been implemented. Quarterly, a NH SPDG LT representative will join a regional
coach for an LEA coaching visit, to also collect coaching implementation fidelity data to validate
the ongoing self-report data from the regional coaches.
Each intervention fidelity instrument (ELO, transition planning, family engagement)
will be developed in accordance with the evidence-base it is derived from. An ELO checklist
(see Appendix A) has been created by the ELO Practice Group of the NH Transition CoP to
assess the degree and quality of ELO implementation. To assess the quality of implementation of
transition planning in the selected LEAs, we will use the TOPS Model. This instrument/process
has been used with LEAs in the two regions started under SIG 2. Other data to be collected and
reviewed include SPP data on parent engagement (SPP #8), transition planning (SPP #13) and
transition outcomes (SPP #14). An annual impact and satisfaction survey will be administered to
all participating LEA personnel to gather quantitative and qualitative to inform project
management and implementation.
At each level of implementation (state-regional, regional-local), information loops will be
developed so that practice informs policy (PIP) and policy enables practice (PEP). PIP cycles
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
41
will be based on the implementation and intervention fidelity data collected, analyzed, and
shared with all stakeholders, particularly those in a position to influence policy (NH DOE
Leadership Team). PEP cycles will be facilitated by information sharing across state, regional,
and local personnel so that all SPDG participants are knowledgeable and skilled in the
implementation of SPDG activities (Criteria 3 and 4).
Objective 6: To ensure LEA administrators are trained to support their staff and initiatives
to implement and sustain the use of ELOs, transition planning and family engagement
strategies. (Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems Intervention Driver)
SPDG Performance Measure #1 addresses two Facilitative Administrative Support/Systems
Intervention strategies:
• Administrators are trained appropriately on the SPDG-supported practices and have
knowledge of how to support its implementation.
• LEA leadership analyzes feedback from staff and makes changes to alleviate barriers and
facilitate implementation, including revising policies and procedures to support new ways
of work.
A training module will be developed to train LEA and school administrators on
implementation of ELOs, transition planning and family engagement strategies. The resources
will initially be conducted as real time webinars, but will also be archived on the Transition
Resource Portal. The resources will provide overviews of each initiative, including training,
coaching, and pre and post evaluation of participants’ knowledge and skill. A particular focus
will be on how administrators can support their staff in the implementation of transition
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
42
activities. A second module will be created to provide guidance on analyzing data and feedback
from staff to improve project implementation, using the PIP-PEP cycles.
Faculty and staff at KSC will be responsible for enhancing and providing professional
development on the use of the web-based Transition Resource Portal (TRP), on the KSC website.
The Portal will play a vital role in supporting ongoing training and coaching resources related to
postsecondary education during and after the grant period. All grant training and coaching
materials, evaluation instruments and assessments, and resource materials will be available on
the TRP. Trainers and coaches working with the regional intermediaries will be trained in how to
use the TRP for their training and coaching with LEAs in their regions.
Objective 7: To enhance the inclusion of evidence-based training materials on ELOs,
transition planning, and parent/family engagement in IHE pre-service training programs
to sustain delivery of grant services throughout the state.
Thinking about sustainability from day one, our initial objectives focuses on the
development, installation, and ongoing support of a statewide training and coaching model. As
explained in the Significance section, we will build on efforts begun in NH’s second SIG/SPDG.
This includes regional provision of professional development through regional PD
intermediaries, statewide guidance and direction through the NH Transition Community of
Practice, and coordinated activities with NH IHEs with teacher preparation programs.
An IHE workgroup will meet quarterly to conduct a needs assessment of NH IHE teacher
preparation programs that include IDEA requirements for secondary transition, student driven
transition planning process, family engagement, and other evidence base transition practices, to
develop materials to be incorporated into general and special education pre-service coursework
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
43
and to coach and support the development of regional PD expertise. NH SPDG MT Team will
lead work group efforts with support from faculty and staff from KSC, sharing successful
strategies from previous SIG/SPDG work.
One IHE will be recruited through a competitive RFP process based on need, data, and
commitment. IHE faculty will be included or invited to regional trainings on ELOs, evidence –
based transition planning, and family engagement to learn practices to be incorporated into their
IHE teacher preparation program courses. The SPDG MT Team will provide resources for the
IHE to (1) review their current programs and curriculum for knowledge and skill currently
addressed in their teacher preparation program courses that address secondary transition and (2)
to develop materials, curriculum, coursework, and programs to enhance pre-service programs for
students in their teacher preparation programs.
The review will include a pre-syllabi data review of all SPED/ED courses that include
secondary transition in the course content, as well as SPED/ED courses that don’t include it but
could/should. Those professors will be mentored by KSC faculty to support the development and
implementation of successful secondary transition course components within their curriculum.
The NH DOE will also do a post-syllabi data review to determine the impact of the project on
IHE professors.
The NH DOE will work with participating IHEs to add additional items to existing surveys
of recent graduates from each of the three IHEs to assess content knowledge of secondary
transition at the beginning of the grant cycle and continue to do so annually to assess how the
content knowledge in this area is/has increased. The goal would be for the graduates to possess
the necessary knowledge of secondary transition planning to prepare students for college and/or
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
44
a career and to possess the tools to enter the NH special education workforce prepared to support
students in this area. This will further ensure sustainability and build capacity within the state.
The IHE faculty that goes through this process will continue teaching secondary transition
curriculum to their students after the grant has ended to sustain personnel preparation and student
success across NH. The Keene portal will remain a tool for IHE professors after the grant has
ended and the NH DOE will continue assisting Keene in this endeavor. The annual NH
Transition Summit will be used as our means for sharing our NH SPDG practices with a larger
NH audience, including IHE faculty.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
45
QUALITY OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
This section of our proposal explains the employment policy for the NH DOE, as well as
similar policies for specified organizational partners and potential contractors. Following the
review of employment policy, the qualifications of key project personnel are provided.
Affirmative Action Statement
The State of New Hampshire is an equal opportunity employer. Discrimination on the basis
of age, sex, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed, national
origin, sexual orientation or any other non-merit factor is strictly prohibited. The State of New
Hampshire also has an Equal Employment Affirmative Action Plan in place that outlines
recruitment, selection, and appointment practices along with the discrimination complaint
process procedures. It is the policy of the NH DOE to recruit and hire personnel without regard
to race, color, religion, marital status, national/ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or
disability in its programs, activities and employment practices. Leadership and staff positions
openings will be advertised in several publications so that people from underrepresented groups
are aware of available positions(s) and all announcements will encourage applicants from
members of underrepresented groups. The NH DOE has made serious and sustained efforts to
recruit, admit, and retain a diverse employee population. The Department currently employs
many individuals with disabilities across the spectrum of Department projects and activities.
All NH SPDG partners also strongly promote employment opportunities for all individuals.
These agencies are also very aggressive in their hiring practices in recruiting and maintaining
high rates of underrepresented groups. All avenues will be utilized in recruiting ethnic
minorities, women, elderly, and individuals with disabilities.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
46
Section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA) of 1994 requires that each
applicant for funds ensures that steps are taken to ensure equitable access to, and participation in,
federally funded projects for program beneficiaries with special needs. The following steps will
be taken to address the equity issues in Section 427: a) every educator, paraeducator, school
administrator, related service provider, student with disabilities, and parent enrolled in any of
proposed SPDG professional development activity will have an equal opportunity to be engaged
in the training that is provided by the SPDG project staff; b) all materials disseminated by, to and
for project personnel will be in an accessible format; c) all facilities that house SPDG project
activities will be fully accessible; d) interpreters will be available as requested; and e) closed or
open captioned materials will be available as requested. The NH SPDG will take active steps to
recruit individuals from diverse backgrounds as project participants and project staff including
partner organizations on this grant. The project includes participating schools throughout the
state, including those in the rural north, west, seacoast, and south central area, which includes our
larger urban populations with the most culturally and ethnically diverse communities.
Project Personnel
Below, we outline the experience and responsibilities of key staff and consultants who will
play a role in the NH SPDG. Three key staff (Steady, Jenks, Harrington) are from the Bureau of
Special Education (BSE) at the NH DOE. The other personnel listed are:
• PTI Consultants – Michelle Lewis and Jen Cunha, NH Parent Information Center
• ELO Consultant – Ms. Elizabeth Cardine, QED Foundation
• IHE Consultant - Steve Bigaj, Keene State College
• IHE Project Manager - Betsy Street, Keene State College
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
47
• Regional PD Intermediary Trainer/Coach - Sheila Mahon, Monadnock Center for
Successful Transitions (MSCT)
• Regional PD Intermediary Trainer/Coach - Heidi Howard Wyman, Stafford Learning
Center (SLC)
• VR Consultants - Tina Greco and Angela Correau , Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation
• RENEW Consultant - JoAnne M. Malloy, Institute on Disability, UNH
• External Evaluators – Patricia H. Mueller (EEC) and Brent Garrett (PIRE)
Project Director - Mary Steady (20% FTE in kind): Ms. Steady is an education consultant in
the BSE at the NH DOE with extensive experience in collaboration and coordination of
transition services for individuals with disabilities. Mary will serve as the NH SPDG Grant
Director and Chair of the NH SPDG LT. In her current role Mary serves as a liaison between the
BSE and NHVR. She is an activate member of the State Rehabilitation Council (SRC), which is
an appointed position by the Governor. The State Rehabilitation Council is NHVR’s central
advisory group. Within her role in the council, she assisted in the development of a three year
Statewide Comprehensive Needs Assessment (CSNA) and developed a new three year strategic
plan for the SRC to help advise NHVR. She is also an active member of the NH Transition CoP.
Prior to assuming her current role, Mary was a vocational counselor at NHVR. In this capacity,
she served as a member of the NHVR leadership group that was instrumental in implementation
of the Transformational Coaching Model for systemic change within the agency. Before coming
to the NH DOE, Mary worked as service coordinator in the developmental disability system, a
behavior specialist, case manager and special education teacher in both public and private
schools in NH. Mary earned a B.S. from the University of NH and a M.Ed. from Plymouth State
University.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
48
Grant Coordinator - Amy Jenks (100% FTE) is a Program Specialist III in the NH DOE, BSE.
Ms. Jenks, will serve as the NH SPDG Grant Coordinator, overseeing the day-to-day
implementation of the NH SPDG goals, objectives and activities. Ms. Jenks has served as the
grant coordinator for the last two NH SIG/SPDGs and oversaw the financial budget aspects of
NH’s original SIG grant. Ms. Jenks has over 23 years in various roles from financial personnel to
grant coordinator at the NH DOE, BSE. Ms. Jenks has presented to her SPDG peers on NH
SIG/SPDG activities at both National SPDG conferences and SPDG Webinars on topics
including: Data Usability, Advisory Boards for SPDGs and Use of the CoP Strategy. In addition,
Ms. Jenks serves on the NH State RTI Taskforce/Professional Learning Community and the NH
Transition CoP.
Project Consultant - McKenzie Harrington (15% FTE in kind) Mrs. Harrington is an
Education Consultant in the NH DOE, BSE. Mrs. Harrington will serve as a member of the NH
DOE leadership team for the NH SPDG Grant and will work directly with the SPDG
Coordinator and Project Director, as well as the other sub-contracted vendors for this grant.
Currently, she oversees Indicator 13 secondary transition work for the Bureau, which includes
the monitoring of school districts for compliance with transition planning and the training of
school district personnel on the successful transition planning for students with disabilities as
well as the components and expectations of compliance for this Indicator. She is also the Project
Director for Achievement for Dropout Prevention and Excellence III project (APEX III), which
is a four year dropout prevention initiative funded by the Bureau that includes secondary
transition work, and; oversees the Bureau’s Technical Assistance Consultants (TAC) project.
Mrs. Harrington received her Master of Education from Plymouth State University.
PTI Consultants – Michelle Lewis (50 % FTE) and Jennifer Cunha (50% FTE)
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
49
Michelle Lewis and Jennifer Cunha will serve as primary PIC personnel on the proposed
SPDG project. Together they possess the knowledge and skills to assist all the project partners in
their work to increase family engagement and provide high quality professional development in
the transition planning process to improve student outcomes. Michelle and Jennifer have worked
consistently with the BSE under multiple initiatives to infuse family engagement and have a
reputation for providing high quality support and technical assistance. Their efforts to build
relationships have been successful as they provide targeted technical assistance to LEAs
throughout NH and are training and mentoring parent leaders in conjunction with LEAs.
Ms. Lewis is currently the Interim PIC Executive Director. She holds a M.Ed. in School
Counseling and has worked with families and systems for over 15 years. She has successfully led
numerous state and federal grant programs and initiatives, the majority of them focused on
IDEA. Ms. Lewis’s unique background in school counseling, coupled with her training in
secondary transition planning, allows her to effectively work with families and school districts.
In addition, she has expertise in data collection, processing, and analysis, especially in relation to
early childhood transition and parent involvement (Indicators 12 and 8 in the SPP/APR).
Ms. Cunha currently serves as the Project Coordinator for NH Connections, a NH DOE
funded project to support families of children with disabilities and school district personnel to
strengthen family-school partnerships in special education. Through this project, she also
supports the NH DOE on Indicator 8 (Parent Involvement) of the SPP. She has provided PD and
training for several school districts, pre-service and in-service teacher training programs and
early intervention programs. Ms. Cunha is also the facilitator for the Parent Information Center
Volunteer Advocate Training Program. This foundation positions her to provide effective PD to
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
50
families and LEAs to increase family/school partnerships in special education. She holds a
Bachelor’s Degree in Special Education and has experience as a special educator.
ELO Consultant- Elizabeth Cardine (14% FTE year 1 and 6% years 2-5). Ms. Cardine is a
School Coach and “Master Learner” with Q.E.D. Foundation. Ms. Cardine will oversee the
initial ELO training conducted in Year 1, which will develop a cadre of state and regional ELO
trainers and coaches. Ms. Cardine will be available for consulting on challenging implementation
issues throughout the project. She taught high school at the innovative Monadnock Community
Connections charter school in Swanzey, NH and currently is the Instructional Coach for its
successor school, Making Community Connections Charter School, actively involved in
designing key structural elements to support students and staff. She has experience advocating
for transformational learning environments with local, state and national partners such as the
Five Freedoms Project, First Amendment Schools, Coalition of Essential Schools, School
Reform Initiative, Extended Learning Opportunities, Faces of Learning, and the new MC2
Charter Schools. In addition to collaborating with the MCST and KSC on the development of
BeyondClassroom.com, a web site compendium of resources, best practices, as well as design
and assessment tools for ELOs. Ms. Cardine has led multiple series of acclaimed trainings in NH
and Rhode Island on the design, implementation, coaching, assessment, and support of ELOs.
Elizabeth’s expertise and interests include learner differences, democratic education, educational
equity, creativity in education, and high school redesign.
IHE Consultant - Steve Bigaj, Ph.D. (10% FTE) Dr. Bigaj is the Associate Dean and Professor
at KSC in Keene, NH. Dr. Bigaj will assist NH DOE staff in the implementation of IHE
activities described in Objective 6 and will serve as a resource and expert to the NH SPDG LT
on student focused evidence based transition services. Dr. Bigaj is a founding member of the NH
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
51
Transition CoP. He is member of the IHE Network, and recently assisted in the coordination of a
statewide NH DOE school reform conference at KSC (over 600 educators attended) which
focused on the common core standards and college and career readiness. His experiences as an
educator include public school teaching, teacher training, consulting, and administering
educational programs. Dr. Bigaj’s expertise and research interests span issues in the field of
special education with a primary focus on transition and career development issues for youth
with disabilities, special education teacher training, self-determination, and inclusive teaching
practices. As a special education professor and higher education administrator, he has managed
several grant related projects focused on transition and the professional development of
educators. As a part of these initiatives he has produced a range of resources, conducted research,
and nurtured community networks. Dr. Bigaj received his Ph.D. from the University of
Connecticut where he focused on postsecondary transition planning for individuals with
disabilities.
IHE Project Manager- Betsy Street (70% FTE): Ms. Street is a project manager in the School
of Professional and Graduate Studies at KSC. Betsy will coordinate day-to-day implementation
of the KSC component of the SPDG project and serve on the NH SPDG LT. In her current role
Betsy manages KSC educator professional development efforts associated with the State
Education Agency for Higher Education, Title II-A (SAHE) grant, serves as logistics and
curriculum director for the A Chance to Experience Success (ACES) Summer Program, and
develops instructional materials that facilitate work-based learning experiences for high school
and college students with disabilities. Betsy also worked closely with NHVR in their successful
development of the Transition Internship Project graduate course for special educators. She was
the project manager for KSC’s portions of the Granite State Employment Project, a Medicaid
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
52
Infrastructure Grant (MIG), which included development of a resource website and professional
development workshops on ELOs. She is a member of the NH Transition CoP and facilitates a
Southwest regional Transition CoP group. Betsy earned a B.A. from Wellesley College with a
dual degree in Astronomy and American Studies.
Regional PD Intermediary Trainer/Coach (Western Region) - Sheila Mahon (70% FTE):
Ms. Mahon is the Project Director for the MCST, a program of Monadnock Developmental
Services (MDS). Ms. Mahon will serve as a trainer/coach for our western regional PD
intermediary, the MCST. She worked on SIG 2 and has extensive transition training and
coaching experience. She will provide mentorship to new regional PD intermediary
trainers/coaches and serve on the NH SPDG LT. MCST is a training and resource center with a
focus on transition and employment supports for individuals with disabilities. Sheila has been the
Director of the program since 2005. Prior to that, she was the Director of Service Coordination
for MDS. MCST has served as a lead agency for the Department of Education, State
Improvement Grant 2 and the NH Medicaid Infrastructure Grant. Through these grants, she has
worked with schools, community organizations, businesses, families, and individuals with
disabilities. Her work includes career exploration programs for high school students and adults
with disabilities, training for professionals regarding transition and employment services, and the
coordination of a statewide marketing program to improve employment outcomes for individuals
with disabilities. Sheila is a graduate of KSC and Antioch University New England, with a MS in
Management and Organization. She is a Certified Employment Support Professional, an ACRE
job development trainer and a Coaching and Communication Trainer.
Regional PD Intermediary Trainer/Coach (Seacoast Region) - Heidi Howard Wyman,
MSW (70% FTE): Ms. Wyman works for Strafford Learning Center in Somersworth as a
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
53
Transition Consultant and the director of the Transition Resource Network (TRN). Like Ms.
Mahon at MCST, Ms. Wyman will serve as a trainer/coach for our eastern regional PD
intermediary at the Stafford Center. She also worked on SIG 2 and has extensive transition
training and coaching experience. She will also provide mentorship to new regional PD
intermediary trainers/coaches and serve on the NH SPDG LT. In 2004, she began TRN, a
regional intermediary or “hub” for people and programs concerned with young people making a
successful transition to life after high school. TRN was established under US DOL ODEP
funding in 2004, was funded as a regional technical assistance and training center under NH’s
SIG 2 grant in 2006, and has functioned since 2008 through fee-for-service contracts from school
districts and agencies. Under NH SIG 2, Ms. Wyman partnered with KSC to design an action
planning process for addressing Indicator 13 non-compliance issues, with the guidance of Dr. Ed
O’Leary of the Transition Outcomes Project. Ms. Wyman has established strong working
relationships with school districts and agencies that will aid in the development of a web of
interconnected professional development opportunities and activities.
VR Co- Liaison - Tina Greco (10% FTE in-kind): Ms. Greco serves as the Transition
Coordinator for NHVR. Ms. Greco will serve on the grant as a Co-Liaison for NHVR. She will
serve as a member of the NH LT, a state-level VR coach, and coordinate VR efforts at the
regional level. As a woman with Cerebral Palsy, she understands the significance that transition
holds in the lives of students with disabilities. In her position, she provides support to NHVR
staff, schools, students and their families and other community organizations to understand and
implement the overall transition process. Ms. Greco has worked on a number of efforts that seek
to develop and foster collaborative relationships with other agencies and organizations involved
in transition activities for students with disabilities. Prior to working with VR, Ms. Greco worked
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
54
as an Independent Living Skills Specialist for Granite State Independent Living and served as a
co-facilitator for the organization’s youth and young adult programs. Ms. Greco holds a BA in
Communication from George Mason University and a Masters degree in Rehabilitation from
Assumption College.
VR Co-Liaison - Angela Correau (10% FTE in-kind): Ms. Correau has worked at NHVR for
six years. In her current position, she supports the field and central office to coordinate,
implement, and manage projects with direction from the interim Director. She will work with
Ms. Greco on the grant as a Co-Liaison for NHVR. She also will serve as a member of the NH
LT, a state-level VR coach, and coordinate VR efforts at the regional level. She previously
worked as a counselor with a caseload that consisted of adults, veterans, and transition students.
She recently completed her Masters’ degree in Rehabilitation Counseling and became a Certified
Rehabilitation Counselor. Before coming to NHVR, Angela worked in the areas of mental
health, services for Elderly and Chronically Ill Individuals, and independent living/transition
services for at risk youth.
RENEW Consultant - JoAnne M. Malloy (15% FTE): Dr. Malloy is a Clinical Assistant
Professor in the School of Social Work and works for the IOD at the UNH. She will coordinate
training and state-level coaching for implementation of RENEW activities (Objective 3). Dr.
Malloy received her doctorate in Education from the UNH is April 2011. She joined the staff of
IOD (NH’s University Center for Excellence in Disability) in 1991 where she has directed
several state and federally-funded employment and dropout prevention projects. In 1996, she
directed a demonstration project - RENEW (Rehabilitation, Empowerment, Natural Supports,
Education, and Work), to create employment opportunities for youth with emotional and
behavioral disabilities, which has been sustained for sixteen years. Ms. Malloy also directs the
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
55
NH Endowment for Health to train community mental health center staffs to provide RENEW
services to youth with emotional and behavioral disorders.
External Evaluator – Patricia H. Mueller, Ed.D. Dr. Mueller is President and founder of
Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting Inc., (EEC) a woman-owned firm specializing in evaluation
of federal-funded programs. Dr. Mueller has extensive experience evaluating federally funded
education initiatives to include: SPDGs in MS, NH and VT; Regional Resource Centers; the
National Center on Educational Outcomes; and IHE personnel preparation programs. She
employs a systematic approach to evaluation that incorporates state-of-the-art methods and strategies
in the field of evaluation.
External Evaluator – Brent Garrett, Ph.D. EEC will collaborate with the Pacific Institute for
Research and Evaluation to coordinate evaluation activities. Dr. Garrett will serve as lead PIRE
evaluator. He brings twenty years of experience of teaching, professional development,
evaluation, and research in a variety of educational areas. Dr. Garrett and his team currently
works on NH’s SPDG evaluation team, and collaborates with other partners to assist in
evaluating SPDGs in KY, VT, and MS. He also serves as the external evaluator for National
Center and State Collaborative GSEG at the University of Minnesota. Dr. Garrett and the PIRE
team offer a variety of methodological skills, using both quantitative and qualitative practices.
The goal of his work is to provide scientifically sound evaluation findings in an easy to use,
practical manner for the purpose of program improvement, assessing program impact, and
assuring accountability of state and federal funds.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
56
ADEQUACY OF RESOURCES
In this section, we describe the adequacy of support provided by NH DOE and partner
agencies. The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner is presented both in the
narrative and in their letters of support, found in Appendix __. We also discuss how our budget
is appropriate to meet the project demands, and how the budget is closely linked to the project.
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources,
from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
New Hampshire Department of Education
The NH DOE located in the state capital of Concord, NH is comprised of the Office of the
Commissioner, Office of the Deputy Commissioner, and the Divisions of Adult Learning and
Rehabilitation, Instruction and Program Support. The Bureau of Special Education (BSE) located
within the Division of Instruction will implement the NH SPDG goals and objectives. NH DOE
has successfully administered three SIG/SPDGs, and therefore has demonstrated its ability to
execute a SPDG Project.
The BSE currently manages state and federal resources to approximately 29,000 New
Hampshire students with disabilities under IDEA Part B. The BSE provides PD to LEAs on
various special education topics throughout the year and has technical assistance consultants
available upon written request that can provide training and technical assistance to districts on-
site on specific identified special education areas such as Indicator 13 compliance, writing
measurable annual goals, etc. The NH DOE BSE has committed to provide NH DOE BSE staff
in-kind to the NH SPDG grant to ensure infusion of NH SPDG activities with BSE priorities and
projects. In addition, the NH DOE BSE has committed to providing in-kind funds to provide
PALS training to NH SPDG personnel and NH DOE BSE for greater PD outcomes and
sustainability. The NH DOE will provide the necessary office space, equipment, and supplies,
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
57
and other resources for the SPDG project personnel to effectively support the NH SPDG
activities, including fiscal, accounting, contract, human resources, and IT support. The NH DOE
has the necessary teleconferencing, GotoMeeting, video conferencing and webinar capabilities to
implement the grant goals and objectives. These technology resources will be used to supplement
the majority of the training and coaching that will be done on-site in districts or regionally as
well as more efficient communication between NH SPDG and the four regional intermediaries.
All NH SPDG web content will follow Priority Level 1 of the Web Accessibility Guidelines
published by the Web Accessibility Initiative (www.w3c.org/wai/) and Section 508 Standards for
Web-based Internet information/applications (www.section508.gov), which are based in part on
the WAI Guidelines. The manual and automatic procedures used to evaluate the site will follow
those recommended by the Web Accessibility Initiative (http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/) and will
be continually reviewed. All print documents published and disseminated by NH SPDG will be
made available in alternate formats upon request. Any conferences or meeting space for NH
SPDG will be accessible in accordance with the ADA to ensure full participation of individuals
with disabilities.
New Hampshire Parent Information Center
The Parent Information Center (PIC) has served as NH’s Parent Training and Information
Center (PTI) since 1977. PIC’s PTI project is a nationally recognized parent center for its strong
programmatic foundation and the high quality of their publications and trainings. PIC’s
reputation as the provider of quality information and training is based on sound statistical
evidence. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) scores of the PTIs (including
PIC) are the highest of any OSEP-funded project (Goldberg, National Alliance Conference).
Additionally, data from the PTI’s most recent performance report (workshop evaluation
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
58
summary, GPRA data sheets, and test scores of PIC Volunteer Advocates) demonstrate positive
and measurable outcomes from our training and information efforts.
The NH PTI has supported the work of previous NH’s State Improvement Grants and
SPDG’s specific to the secondary transition planning process for families and enhancing school
district staff capacity. This previous work included the development of PIC’s award winning tool
kit “Life After High School” developed under SIG II. PIC will use the lessons it has learned, the
current research as well as its strong relationships with families and school district personnel to
meet the objectives of the current NHSPDG.
Keene State College
Founded in 1909 as a two-year normal school to meet New Hampshire's need for well-
educated and effective teachers, Keene State College (KSC) has evolved into the state’s public
liberal arts college. With an enrollment of over 5,700 students, and more than 40 programs of
study, including a new nursing program, KSC prepares students to think critically, act creatively,
and serve the greater good. Building on the historical legacy of teacher preparation at Keene
State College, the Education program mission is to prepare competent, reflective classroom
teachers and other professional school personnel who apply effective teaching practices and who
create developmentally appropriate educational environments for diverse learners. Keene State
College has been an NCATE accredited institution since 1954; each education program option
meets state and national standards and prepares teacher candidates who demonstrate appropriate
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, ability to impact student learning, and
professionalism. KSC also offers graduate degrees in Special Education, Curriculum and
Instruction, School Counseling, and Educational Leadership. The M.Ed. in Special Education
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
59
provides K-12 certification and all candidates are required to complete internship experiences at
the secondary level and complete a course in transition planning and programming.
Southwestern NH Education Support Center at Keene State College (SWnhESC@KSC) is
the teacher PD division of Continuing Education and works with school districts statewide to
offer customized training and other PD opportunities. In the past year, the SWnhESC@KSC
hosted two statewide NH Department of Education conferences focused on Common Core
Standards and College and Career Readiness. The Center also partners with Plymouth State
University and other IHEs in NH on a Title II-A grant, State Education Agency for Higher
Education (SAHE) educator PD grant to improve educator effectiveness in rural areas of NH.
As part of the SWnhESC@KSC, The Monadnock Center for Successful Transitions at Keene
State (MCST) provides resources, customized training, and professional development
opportunities to NH Educators in the area of transition and career development. The MCST is a
partnership between KSC and Monadnock Developmental Services and has worked on a range
of transition and career/employment grant initiatives since 2004. A primary project of the center
has been the development of the A Chance to Experience Success (ACES) Summer Program and
CampVision, programs that support the development of self-determination and career
development skills for youth with disabilities. In addition to these programs, the center has
worked with school districts to improve the capacity to provide transition services for youth and
adults with disabilities in our community including working with targeted school districts on
improving I-13 outcomes through the implementation of the Transition Outcomes Project
(TOPs). The center has created several web resources to assist our transition community to build
knowledge about transition and career development (http://transitions.keenecommons.net/).
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
60
KSC offers a range of technological supports for classroom and distance learning. KSC’s
technology infrastructure includes voice, video, and data services across the entire campus. IT
professionals provide support to KSC staff and faculty for the development of websites, such as
Beyond the Classroom: Extended Learning Opportunities (http://beyondclassroom.org/); video
conferencing; media-enhanced learning; etc. KSC provides technology-enabled classrooms, and
public and specialized computer labs on campus. In addition to the traditional IT supports,
KSC’s Center for Engagement, Learning and Teaching (CELT) coordinates resources and
experiences in support of deeper learning, 21st century teaching tools, effective teaching, and
community and professional engagement. The Center provides support for our web-based course
delivery platform, Blackboard.
Monadnock Developmental Services – Regional PD Intermediary
Monadnock Developmental Services (MDS) is one of ten NH Area Agencies providing
services to children and adults with developmental and other disabilities. MDS provides a wide
variety of community based supports and services including service coordination, family
support, residential, vocational and day services, respite, nursing and many other services. The
mission of MDS is: to work toward inclusion, participation and mutual relationships for all
people who are at risk of isolation from community. We will promote self-determination and
quality of life, develop an environment which encourages creativity, innovation and
individuality, and ensure quality of supports.
MDS has a variety of programs that it oversees, including the MCST partnership with KSC
just described. MCST will be the western regional PD intermediary for implementing the SPDG
initiatives. MCST is a training and resource center with a focus on transition and employment
supports for individuals with disabilities. It started under a grant from the Office of Disability
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
61
Employment Policy in 2005. Subsequently it has been the recipient of a Department of
Education State Improvement Grant and a Medicaid Infrastructure Grant. MCST works with a
wide variety of stakeholders with the goal of improving transition services and employment
outcomes for individuals with disabilities. MCST was one of the two sustained PD centers from
NH’s second SPDG and has continued to be a leader in state.
MDS serves more than 1,000 individuals in the 34 towns of the Monadnock region. MDS has
offices in Keene and Peterborough, both equipped with video conferencing equipment. The
agency has an annual budget of approximately $27 million. During the past five years, MDS has
received over $1.5 million in grant funding. The Business Office has sound fiscal and
accounting procedures that provide the agency with the ability and systems to support the fiscal
demands placed upon it.
Stafford Learning Center – Regional PD Intermediary
Strafford Learning Center (SLC) is a private, non-profit organization incorporated in 1973.
The Board of Directors and staff are committed to offering high quality special education and
related supports to over thirty school districts throughout the region. Strafford Learning Center
has six “member” School Administrative Units. These “members” share governance of the
organization via the Board of Directors. SLC conducts an annual audit, results of which show the
Center consistently conforms to generally accepted accounting principles.
SLC values PD as fundamental to the success of the organization. PD increases staff
knowledge and professional skills, deepens understanding and appreciation of the varied needs
of students, and enhances capacity to facilitate the learning and success of all students. SLC has
conference space for up to 35 people, and has recently added Skype and conference call
capabilities for increased flexibility. SLC professionals travel throughout the state to engage in
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
62
collaborative planning and provide professional development activities as contracted. Like
MCST, SLC was one of the two sustained PD centers from NH’s second SPDG. They continue
to provide leadership on secondary transition issues in their region and across the state.
SLC is home to Transition Resource Network, a regional intermediary for secondary
transition, which has recently begun work with UNH’s Institute on Disability to develop a
sustainable method for offering Family Center Transition Planning for Youth with Autism
Spectrum Disorders. It is also home to several programs that have been actively engaged in the
implementation of Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs) in New Hampshire: Charles Ott
Academy, Rochester Learning Academy, the North Star Program, and Earn and Learn Summer
Program.
Charles Ott Academy is a half-day, special education placement, designed to be one
component of a student’s personalized learning plan that leads to graduation and that frequently
includes ELOs. Rochester Learning Academy exclusively serves students from the Rochester
School District and offers students identified with emotional/behavioral disabilities the
opportunity to earn a standard high school diploma through a variety of learning pathways
including ELOs. The North Star program is a drop-out prevention and recovery program that
actively engages students and families via a “kitchen-table counseling” approach, re-engaging
students in the pursuit of high school completion and assisting them with the development of
alternative learning plans that often include ELO’s. The Summer Earn and Learn Program is a
combination of classroom and work-based experiences in which students are paid, learn about
the world of work in community businesses, and receive credit in core credit areas.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
63
QED Foundation
As one of three lead partners in the New Hampshire 2007 – 2010 Supporting Student Success
through Extended Learning Opportunities (ELOs) Initiative, QED provided training and
embedded coaching for pilot sites in design, implementation, and assessment of high quality,
proficiency-based, personalized ELOs. QED coached Professional Learning Groups at each pilot
site, including cross-sector groups with educators and community partners. Additionally, QED
collaborated on design and delivery of training for community partners collaborating with
educators on providing ELOs for students, and provided training in the design, implementation,
assessment and support of Extended Learning Opportunities to teams of educators from inside
and outside of schools.
University of New Hampshire Institute on Disability (IOD)
The Institute on Disability (IOD), a University Center for Excellence in Disabilities, located
at the UNH, is a nationally recognized leader promoting the full community participation for
people with disabilities and their families through research, model demonstration, training,
technical assistance, leadership development, systems change activities and policy analysis.
Established in 1987, the IOD currently administers federal, state, and privately funded projects in
a broad range of disability-related areas. The Institute has published numerous monographs,
books, manuals, newsletters, and articles for local, state and national distribution.
The IOD has a consistent record of implementing projects that support and advance the
education and, inclusion, and transition of children and youth with disabilities, including
trainings on numerous transition related topics. The IOD has a formal research agenda and
projects across multiple domains and disability groups and using a variety of quantitative and
qualitative research methods. Recent transition-related projects have included an RSA-funded
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
64
Career Advancement for Individuals with Significant Disabilities model demonstration,
Endowment foundation-supported projects on RENEW capacity building, the development of
core competencies for the children’s mental health workforce, and research on evidence-based
practices in children’s mental health, and a NIDRR-funded project to expand and sustain the
Family-Centered Transition Planning model for Young Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders,
two OSEP-funded demonstrations of innovative school-to-career models, and delivery of three
grant-funded dropout prevention projects of the NH Department of Education.
All facilities and workplaces of the Institute on Disability are fully accessible to individuals
with disabilities. Staff with disabilities are provided resources and consultation to accommodate
workspaces to their individual needs. A variety of assistive technology devices, such as voice-
recognition software, audio recording equipment, and a Braille printer are readily available.
Accessibility is required for all training venues and all online instruction, and accessibility is
monitored by individuals with disabilities who are members of the Consumer Advisory Council.
All training materials are made available in alternate formats as needed.
Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc.
Evergreen Evaluation & Consulting, Inc. (EEC) is a woman-owned small business located in
Jericho, Vermont, founded in 1990 by Dr. Patricia Mueller. EEC consultants and associates have
extensive experience in developing evaluation strategies and methodologies designed to provide
formative and summative feedback to project managers, program personnel and other key
stakeholders. EEC has a demonstrated capacity to communicate evaluation outcomes about the
quality, relevance and effectiveness of large scale, public social programs and services. EEC uses
a collaborative approach to program evaluation and will conduct all activities in close
coordination with the client. EEC prides itself on developing timely, flexible and culturally
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
65
responsive evaluation logic models and evaluation plans that provide the foundation for
successfully moving a program forward to meet its goals and objectives.
EEC’s expertise is primarily in the area of education program evaluation and professional
development. EEC has conducted evaluations of State and Local Education Agency programs,
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Centers and Institutions of Higher Education, including
their personnel preparation programs and other grants. EEC employs two full-time evaluators
and four sub-contracted evaluation and research specialists to augment capacity. In addition,
EEC employs two part-time administrative assistants, an IT specialist, and data analyst. EEC
consultants’ skills and knowledge are matched with the needs of the projects and expectations of
the client.
(ii) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project
to the implementation and success of the project.
Support letters contained in Appendix B provide documentation of each partner’s
commitment and contribution to the proposed workscope. The relevance of each partner’s
contribution can also be found in the Personnel and Adequacy of resources section.
(iii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design,
and potential significance of the proposed project.
NH SPDG will take advantage of NH DOE BSE resources and staff in-kind services. NH
DOE partners, as described in Personnel section, support the NH SPDG and the PD efforts
outlined in this application. NHDOE will use at least 90% of the funds received for PD and the
infrastructure to deliver the PD. The NH DOE has determined the estimated costs to implement
NH SPDG in terms of salaries, benefits and other direct costs based on prior fiscal experience
with previous SIG/SPDG grants and NH state budgeting procedures. As required, the personnel
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
66
responsible and the amount of time required for implementing project objectives and activities
are listed on the person loading chart (found on pages 79 - 80). Both personnel and other direct
costs (travel, supplies, equipment, contractual, and other) are explained in detail in the budget
narrative. Careful thought has been given on how to minimize or share costs among
collaborating agencies. The budget narrative clearly outlines projected expenditures and
discusses how the expenditure relates to specific activities.
(v) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends,
including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to
this type of support.
The NH DOE BSE has a strong commitment to the goals and outcomes of this project given
the strong alignment to our Bureau work and outcomes. As indicated in the Management Plan
and Adequacy of Resources sections the NH DOE BSE has included three in-kind BSE staff to
be trained and act as coaches with in the NH SPDG to ensure that we have bureau staff trained to
continue the professional development of other regional and LEA staff in this work after the life
of the grant. The fact that we have developed a regional PD intermediary infrastructure within
this grant built on previous SPDG 2 PD entities that have been successful in sustaining some
transition services in their region we feel we have a strong probability for sustainability. The two
PD organizations from the SPDG 2 grant will also serve as mentors to the two newer regional
PD intermediaries to share lessons learned and strategies on how to build that sustainable
structure to carry on training after the grant. In addition, the development of the Transition Portal
that will house all the training and coaching materials and resources from the NH SPDG and be
an ongoing sustained resource for the IHEs, Intermediaries, NH DOE, Parent Information
Center, etc. to use for training additional educators, students, and families after the life of this
grant.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
67
QUALITY OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN In this section we discuss the adequacy of our management plan for achieving the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities,
timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks. We also discuss the efforts made to
bring a diversity of perspectives to the development and implementation of these initiatives.
(i) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in
the operation of the proposed project.
Diversity of Perspectives
As described in the management structure section above, a diversity of perspectives will be
included. The New Hampshire Transition Community of Practice Coordinating Group will serve
as the State Transformative Team and in an advisory capacity for the NH SPDG. As discussed in
the Significance section, NH joined the National Transition Community of Practice led by the
IDEA Partnership in 2004. The Coordinating Group will continue to meet bi-monthly to review
SPDG project activities and data, providing guidance and direction to the NH SPDG Leadership
Team.
Diversity of perspectives will also be brought by personnel from agencies outside the NH
DOE. This includes personnel from IHE’s, adult agencies such as Vocational Rehabilitation,
regional professional development intermediaries, and parents. The NH PTI has been an active
partner in previous NH SPDGs and SIGs. Their role has been increased in this work, from .25
FTE in the current proposal to a total of 1.0 FTE through 2 part-time personnel in this proposal.
The PTI has been an active partner in developing this proposal.
NH 2012 State Personnel Development Grant Proposal
68
Figure 2: NH SPDG Management Structure
Mary Steady, SPDG Director (.20 FTE in kind)
Amy Jenks, SPDG Coordinator (1.0 FTE)
TBD, Account Technician (PT)
McKenzie Harrington, (.15 FTE in kind)
TBD, Program Specialist III (.15 FTE in kind)
(Representatives from 4 Regional PD Intermediaries
DOE Management Team
Vocational Rehabilitation
Parent Training and Information Center
Keene State College
External Evaluation and LEA Representation
NH DOE Management Team
NH SPDG Leadership Team
Northern Regional PD Intermediary – NCES
Eastern Regional PD Intermediary - SLC
Central Regional PD Intermediary – GSIL
Western Regional PD Intermediaries - MCST
ELO Work group (includes
QED)
Transition PD and Portal work
group
Evaluation Work Group
IHE Work Group (2
IHEs)
NH Transition Community of Practice
(Advisory Board)
Draft (August 28, 2012)
69
Management Structure
The proposed management structure for the NH SPDG is displayed in Figure 2 on the
previous page. Directing the NH DOE Management Team will be Mary Steady, an Education
Consultant with the NH DOE. Mary has also worked with the NH Office/Bureau of Vocational
Rehabilitation, which provides her with the diversity of experience needed for such a
collaborative effort. Working closely with Ms. Steady is Amy Jenks, (Program Specialist III) a
veteran of NH’s last two SPDGs. Ms. Jenks has presented on NH’s work at SPDG national
conferences and on the SIGNetwork SPDG Directors Community of Practice. McKenzie
Harrington, Education Consultant, who is NH’s Indicator 1, 2, and 13 specialist, will also be
involved. In-kind support is provided for the time of Ms. Steady and Ms. Harrington.
The NH SPDG Leadership Team (LT) will be composed of representatives from the DOE
Management Team, the four regional PD intermediaries, NHVR, the NH PIC, KSC, the NH
Institute on Disability, and the project’s external evaluator. The Leadership Team will meet
monthly for the first year, then switch to meeting every two months for the remainder of the
grant. This group will be critical in ensuring that there is cross-objective communication and
collaboration.
Supporting the LT will be four work groups, focusing on specific project activities. Work
group membership will cut across partners and tasks to ensure a diversity of opinions is present
at the work group level. Each workgroup will have a designated facilitator. There will be PTI
representation on all work groups. The ELO Work Group will include SDPG core staff, LT
members, and the QED Foundation. It will plan Objective 2 training, coaching, and website
activities related to ELOs. The Transition PD and Portal Work Group will be composed of KSC,
CoP members, the NH Institute on Disability, and pertinent LT members and charged with
planning training and coaching activities on transition planning, family engagement, RENEW
Draft (August 28, 2012)
70
and other similar PD. They will also oversee the Transition Resource Portal to determine what
modules, materials, and PD information is maintained on the site. The Evaluation Work Group
will be facilitated by the project’s external evaluator and includes DOE staff and LT members.
They will review all drafted instruments, collection data strategies, and evaluation reports. The
IHE Work Group will include KSC faculty and staff and pertinent LT members. Besides
collaborating on pre-service education programs, this work group will develop an RFP for other
IHEs to participate. The LT will review and approve proposals. The IHE Work Group will also
provide expertise across all project activities. The workgroups will meet monthly the first year,
then switch to meeting every other month for the remainder of the project.
ii. The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project
on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
Tables 8 - 14 state which organizations will be responsible for each activity and when the
activity will be implemented. Following each table is a list of milestones for each objective.
Pertinent milestones will be reviewed at each Leadership Team meeting. Table 15 lists the
amount of effort for each key personnel. The budget and budget justification were developed to
minimize costs, while providing the supports necessary to implement the proposal.
Our strategies for using implementation science have been discussed throughout the
proposal. PIP/PEP cycles will be an integral component of our feedback/feedforward process,
practice profiles will be used to identify the critical components of interventions and assist in
evaluation instrument development, and we discuss the instruments to be used to assess
implementation stages and organizational drivers in the Evaluation section.
Draft (August 28, 2012)
71
Table 8: Objective 1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on ELOs, transition planning, and family engagement, and to
define the expectations and commitment of those receiving PD.
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
1.1: Define grant roles and responsibilities among all SPDG partners NH LT Q1-2 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1
1.2: Identify competencies required of trainers NH LT Q1-2
1.3: Recruit trainers/coaches in four regional PD intermediaries (RPIs) NH LT/RPIs Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
1.4: Recruit a minimum of five high schools in four different regions NH LT/RPIs Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1 Q1
1.5: Regional trainers assist high schools to identify 1-3 LEA coaches RPIs Q1 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
1.6: Assess LEAs commitment-level on current initiatives NH LT Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
1.7: Assess LEA’s capacity to add transition practices NH LT Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
Objective 1 Milestones:
• All four regions have qualified transition trainers/coaches
• Five new LEAs recruited each year
• Each LEA has identified coaches
• LEA commitment and capacity to implement evidence-based transition practices
Draft (August 28, 2012)
72
Table 9: Objective 2: To increase and expand the use of ELOs in all regions of NH
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
2.1: Review existing ELO PD offerings in high schools QED/RPIs Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2 Q2
2.2: Partner with QED 2 to develop an ELO PD manual QED/NH LT Q1-4
2.3: Usability test of ELO training material NH LT/RPIs Q3-4 Q1-2
2.4: ELO training with first set of 4 LEAs QED Q3-4
2.5: QED trains NH SPDG LT & regional coaches to provide ELO training QED Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
2.6: Regional trainers will facilitate local ELO training RPIs Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
2.7: Annual training to new LEAs NH LT/RPIs Q4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Objective 2 Milestones:
• ELO professional development needs assessment completed
• ELO training curriculum developed
• New cohort of LEAs trained each year
• LT and regional PD intermediary staff are qualified to provide ELO training and coaching
Draft (August 28, 2012)
73
Table 10: Objective 3: To increase the use of evidence-based transition planning, including enhanced family engagement strategies.
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
3.1: Conduct yearly assessment using TOPS, Kohler and/or NH
secondary Transition Practice Profile of HS secondary transition
practices
NH LT/RPIs Q1-2 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
3.2: LT identifies areas in need of improvement NH LT Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
3.3: Develop annual plan for provision of further training in identified
areas (transition planning & family engagement) NH LT/RPIs Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
3.4: Develop EB transition training materials NH LT/RPIs Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3
3.5: Develop EB family engagement PD materials for school personnel PIC Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3
3.6: Develop family engagement training for students & families PIC Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3
3.7: Usability test of training materials with regional coaches and LT NH LT/RPIs/PIC Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3 Q2-3
3.8: Regional trainers are trained in SPDG practices RPIs/ PIC Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
3.9: Regional trainers & partners provide training on transition planning
& family engagement to participating LEAs RPIs/ PIC Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Draft (August 28, 2012)
74
3.10: PIC provides family engagement training for students & families PIC Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
3.11: Trainers and partners participate in bi-monthly Transition Planning
WG NH LT/RPIs Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
3.12: All training materials and associated tools on TRP. KSC Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Objective 3 Milestones:
• Annual transition needs assessment completed in new LEAs
• PD plan developed for year
• Training materials developed and tested
• Leadership Team and regional PD intermediary staff are trained in SPDG practices
• Specified training is provided to all participating LEAs
Table 11: Objective 4: To sustain the use of ELO, transition planning, and parent/family engagement strategies, through evidence-based
and quality coaching.
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
4.1: Regional personnel are trained in coaching strategies NH LT/RPIs Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
4.2: Monthly meetings with regional coaches and NH SPDG LT NH LT/RPIs Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Draft (August 28, 2012)
75
4.3: Monthly meetings with regional coaches and participating LEAs RPIs Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
4.4: Coaches support the development of local transition COPs RPIs Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
4.5: Coaches will participate in local COPs in the area of ELOs RPIs Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
4.6: Coaches will participate in local COPs related to transition planning RPIs Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
4.7: Coaches & PIC will develop mechanisms for including families &
students in local/regional COPs RPIs/PIC Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
4.8: PIC provides coaching for selected students & their families regarding
secondary transition planning and practices RPIs/ PIC Q3-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Objective 4 Milestones:
• All partners trained in evidence-based coaching strategies by Carol Trivette
• Monthly coaching meetings held with Leadership Team and regional PD intermediary staff
• Monthly coaching meetings held with regional PD intermediary staff and local coaches
• Local CoPs meet regularly
Draft (August 28, 2012)
76
Table 12: Objective 5: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome data to support decision making at the
school, LEA, and state level.
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
5.1: Review & adopt implementation fidelity instrument for PD on
ELOs, transition planning, and family engagement EEC/E-WG Q2-3
5.2: Review & adopt intervention fidelity instrument for PD on ELOs,
transition planning, and family engagement EEC/E-WG Q2-3
5.3: Review and adopt other implementation or intervention fidelity
instruments as required EEC/E-WG Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
5.4: Train coaches and partners on use of fidelity instruments EEC Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4 Q3-4
5.5: Develop data management system for tracking implementation and
intervention fidelity, and other process data EEC/E-WG Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
5.6: Develop & implement training & coaching evaluation forms EEC/E-WG Q2-3 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
5.7: Evaluation WG meets bi-monthly E-WG Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
5.8: Evaluation data shared quarterly with LT EEC/E-WG/LT Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
5.9: Collect transition outcome data EEC Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4 Q4
Draft (August 28, 2012)
77
Objective 5 Milestones:
• Implementation and intervention fidelity instruments developed
• Training evaluation forms developed
• Data management system developed
• Trainers/coaches are trained in using fidelity instruments
• Fidelity data submitted to project evaluators quarterly
• Evaluation Work Group meets bi-monthly
• Outcome data collected annually
Table 13: Objective 6: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff to implement ELOs, evidence-based transition
planning, and family engagement strategies.
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
6.1: Provide PD for LEA & school administrators to support ELO use NH LT/RPIs Q3-4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2
6.2: Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on how to support
evidence-based transition planning strategies NH LT/RPIs Q3-4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2
6.3: Provide PD for LEA & school administrators on how to support
evidence-based family engagement strategies NH LT/PIC Q3-4 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2 Q1-2
Draft (August 28, 2012)
78
6.4: All training materials will be posted on TRP KSC Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Objective 6 Milestones:
• Administrator training materials developed
• Administrators trained on SPDG practices
Table 14: Objective 7: To enhance the inclusion of evidence-based training materials on SPDG practices in IHE training programs
Objective and Activities Organization
Responsible
Yr.
1
Yr.
2
Yr.
3
Yr.
4
Yr.
5
7.1: Develop/ conduct a needs assessment of NH IHE teacher prep programs LT/KSC Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
7.2: Recruit an additional IHE through a competitive RFP process LT/KSC Q2-3
7.3: Develop materials for review process/documentation of syllabi changes LT/KSC Q2-3
7.4: Review current TRP at KSC and revamp to be a transition portal that will
include family, educator, and other resources LT/KSC Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
7.5: Post all grant training, coaching, assessments, & resource materials KSC Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
7.6: Train and coach regional intermediaries trainers in how to use transition
portal for their training and coaching with LEAs in their region KSC Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3 Q3
7.7: Track web usage data and make revisions to portal based on feedback KSC/EEC Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4 Q1-4
Draft (August 28, 2012)
79
Objective 7 Milestones:
• IHE needs assessment completed
• An IHE is recruited, trained, and evaluated for enhancing pre-service transition training
• Transition portal created
Table 15: Person Loading Chart
Objective MS AJ MH Other DOE
RPI (x4) VR KSC
SB KSC BS PTI QED
Obj. 1: To develop the capacity of those providing
PD on NH SPDG practices. 10 30 5 5 25 3 5 5
Obj. 2: To increase/expand the use of ELOs 5 20 5 5 25 5 3 34 25 23 Yr 1
Obj. 3: To increase the use of NH SPDG practices. 5 20 10 10 35 5 3 25 50
Obj. 4: To sustain the use of NH SPDG practices
through evidence-based and quality coaching. 5 50 10 10 75 10 100 15 Yr 1 16 Yr
2-5
Obj. 5: To increase the use of data to support
decision making at the school, LEA, & state level. 17 75 10 10 4 0 40
Obj. 6: To ensure administrators are trained to
support implementation of NH SPDG practices. 5 40 5 5 15 3 20
Draft (August 28, 2012)
80
Obj. 7: To enhance the inclusion of EB training
materials on SPDG practices in IHE pre-service
training programs
5 25 0 0 5 0 20 120 20
Total Number of Days 52 260 40 40 184 26 26 184 260 38 yr 15 & 16 yr
2-5
FTE 20% 100% 15% 15% 70% 10% 10% 70% 100% 14% yr 1; 6 % yr 2-5
Draft (August 28, 2012)
81
QUALITY OF THE PROJECT EVALUATION
This section outlines the processes to ensure that that the proposed goals and objectives will
be achieved and that the planned activities will be completed in a timely and quality manner. We
will contract with the Evergreen Evaluation and Consulting, Inc., along with partners from the
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE) to serve as our external evaluator once
funded. Between proposed evaluation firms, they have evaluated ten SPDGs in five states over
the last ten years. They are active in the SPDG evaluators’ community of practice and bring
extensive experience in developing evaluation strategies and methodologies designed to provide
formative and summative feedback to project managers, program personnel and other key
stakeholders. This evaluation plan is similar to work conducted with other states by project
evaluators. This allows for testing and development of instruments and findings across states,
promoting greater reliability and validity of results.
(i): The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate
to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
A project logic model (see Appendix A) was developed to ensure there were clear and logical
connections between goals, objectives, and outcomes. The logic model was then used to guide
the development of a draft evaluation plan. The draft evaluation plan is presented over the next
few pages, through a series of evaluation tables depicting data sources, and methods of analyses
for each objective and activity. This will allow us to determine to what degree our goals and
objectives have been met.
The process for collecting, analyzing and reporting evaluation data will be consistent across
objectives. Project evaluators will work with project management to ensure the appropriate data
are collected and there is consensus with how the data will be collected, analyzed, and reported.
It will be the responsibility of the evaluators to collect, analyze, and report the data. When
Draft (August 28, 2012)
82
possible and appropriate, this may be done in collaboration with other project partners. Results
will be shared with project management on an ongoing basis to guide decision making as
described later in this section. Below are established evaluation tools and processes that were
implemented in the current SPDG and will be continued in future work.
• Content Validity Analyses – This process will be used to assess the quality, relevance,
and research basis of new materials developed by the NH SPDG. Local and national
content experts, local LEA and school personnel, families, and other stakeholders will be
utilized to assess the content validity of SPDG products.
• LT and WG Decision Logs – Minutes and action items are recorded for LT and WG
meetings to maintain focus and provide a historical perspective on project activities.
• Professional Development Log (PD Log) – Used by state and regional PD providers to
track the delivery PD activities on an ongoing basis.
• Training Evaluations – All training evaluations will contain a set of standard items
assessing the quality, relevance, and utility of training, as well as logistical issues. Each
type of training will have unique pre/post questions and items inquiring as to the degree
to which training objectives were met.
• Participating Personnel Survey (PPS) – Used annually to gather feedback from project
partners, as well as school and LEA personnel, who participate in SPDG PD.
As the project develops, we will need to develop additional surveys, interviews, and focus
group items to gather quantitative and qualitative data specific to each initiative in order to gauge
project effectiveness. All instruments and procedures will be developed, tested, and implemented
in accordance with standard evaluation protocols (Fowler, 2002; Dillman, 1999; Krueger &
Casey, 2000). Instruments will be developed in a collaborative manner so that the evaluators can
Draft (August 28, 2012)
83
take advantage of the content expertise of project staff. As the audience for our evaluation
activities will vary, we will utilize a variety of types of survey and instrument administration,
including face-to-face, mail, and web-based methods.
Goal: To increase the number of students with disabilities and/or those at risk of
dropping out of school who are college and career ready in New Hampshire through
implementation of evidence based transition practices.
Table 16: Objective 1: To develop the capacity of those providing PD on ELOs, transition
planning, and family engagement, and to define the expectations and commitment of those
receiving PD.
Selection Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 1.1: Define grant roles &
responsibilities for SPDG
partners
• Copy of roles &
responsibilities
• Evaluation WG (E-WG) &
LT review of documents
1.2: Identify competencies
required of trainers
• Copy of
competencies
• LT & expert review of
competencies for content
validity
1.3: Recruit trainers/coaches in
four regional PD intermediaries
• PD providers
recruitment materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
1.4: Recruit a minimum of five
high schools in four different
regions
• LEA recruitment &
commitment materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
1.5: Regional trainers assist high
schools to identify LEA coaches
• LEA coach
recruitment materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
Draft (August 28, 2012)
84
1.6: Assess LEAs commitment-
level on current initiatives
• SISEP Intervention
Assessment Tool (IAT)
• Frequency & descriptive
analysis of IAT
1.7: Assess LEA’s capacity to
add transition practices
• SISEP Intervention
Assessment Tool (IAT)
• Frequency & descriptive
analysis of IAT
Tale 17: Objective 2: To increase and expand the use of ELOs in all regions of NH, by
increasing the knowledge and skills of NH special and general educators, related service
personnel, and administrators in the design, implementation with fidelity, and
sustainability of EB ELOs.
ELO Training Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 2.1: Review existing ELO PD
offerings in relation to
implementing in high schools
• List of ELO PD
available
• E-WG & LT review of ELO
PD
2.2: Partner with QED to develop
a ELO PD resources
• Discussion Log
• Training module
• LT & expert review of PD
module
• Review of Discussion Log
2.3: Usability test of ELO training
material with regional trainers &
NH SPDG LT
• Usability data • Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of usability data
2.4: ELO training with first set of
4 LEAs
• Training evals
• PD Log
• PPS
• Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of training, PD
Log & PPS data
2.5: Regional trainers will support
LEA transition liaisons to coach
• PD Log
• Notes from coaches
• Document review by E-WG
Draft (August 28, 2012)
85
on the implementation of ELOs in
their schools
meeting
2.6: QED trains NH SPDG LT
and regional coaches to provide
ELO training
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of training
& PD Log data
2.7: Annual training to new LEAS
provided by NH SPDG LT and
regional coaches
• Training evals
• PD Log
• PPS
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of
training, PD Log & PPS data
Tale 18: Objective 3: To increase the use of best practice, evidence-based transition
planning, including enhanced family engagement strategies.
Transition Planning Training Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
3.1: Conduct yearly assessment
using LEA identified transition
planning tool
• Assessment
results
• Frequency/descriptive
analysis of data by E-WG
3.2: LT identifies areas in need of
improvement/who provides services.
• SPDG analysis of
LEA needs
• CoP review of analysis
3.3: Develop annual plan for
provision of further training in
identified areas
• LEA PD plans • LT review of PD plans
3.4: Develop evidence based
transition training materials
• Training materials • LT & expert review of
training materials for content
validity
Draft (August 28, 2012)
86
3.5: Develop EB family
engagement training materials for
school personnel
• Training materials • LT & expert review of
training materials for content
validity
3.6: Develop family engagement
training for students/families in
participating LEAs (ACES and Earn
and Learn focused)
• Training materials • LT & expert review of
training materials for content
validity
3.7: Usability test of training
materials with regional coaches
• Usability data • Frequency/descriptive
analysis of usability data
3.8: Regional trainers are trained on
TOPS, family engagement,
RENEW, etc.)
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of training
& PD Log data
3.9: Regional trainers & partners
provide training on transition
planning & family engagement to
participating LEAs (ACES and Earn
and Learn focused)
• Training evals
• PD Log
• PPS
• Frequency/descriptive/
• qualitative analysis of
survey & PD Log data
3.10: PIC provides family
engagement training for students &
families in participating LEAs
• Training evals
• PD Log
• PPS
• Frequency/descriptive/
• qualitative analysis of
survey & PD Log data
3.11: Trainers and partners
participate in bi-monthly Transition
Planning WG
• PD Log
• WG Notes
• LT Discussion Log
• Frequency analysis of PD
Log data
• Review of Discussion Log
Draft (August 28, 2012)
87
3.12: All training materials and
associated tools will be available for
trainers, coaches & public on TRP.
• TRP & training
materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
Tale 19: Objective 4: To sustain the use of ELO, transition planning, and family/parent
engagement strategies, through evidence-based and quality coaching.
Coaching Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 4.1: Regional personnel are trained
in PALS coaching strategies
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of training
& PD Log data
4.2: Monthly meetings with
regional coaches and NH SPDG LT
• PD Log
• LT Discussion Log
• Frequency analysis of PD
Log data
• Review of Discussion Log
4.3: Monthly meetings with
regional coaches & participating
LEAs
• PD Log
• LT Discussion Log
• Frequency analysis of PD
Log data
• Review of Discussion Log
4.4: Coaches support the
development of local transition
COPs
• LT Discussion Log
• Review of Discussion Log
4.5: Coaches will participate in
local COPs in the area of ELOs and
transition planning work
• PD Log
• COP Survey
• Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of survey & PD
Log data
4.6: Coaches will participate in
local COPs related to transition
• PD Log
• COP Survey
• Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of survey & PD
Draft (August 28, 2012)
88
planning work Log data
4.7: Coaches & PTI will develop
mechanisms for including families
& students in local/regional COPs
• LT Discussion Log
• COP Survey
• Review of Discussion Log
• Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of survey
4.8: PTI provides coaching for
selected students & their families
regarding transition planning &
practices
• Student/Family
Survey
• Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of survey
Tale 20: Objective 5: To increase the use of implementation, intervention, and outcome
data to support decision making at the school, LEA, and state level.
Performance Assessment Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method
5.1: Review & adopt
implementation fidelity
instrument for PD on ELOs,
transition planning, & family
engagement
• Fidelity of implementation
instruments for ELOs, transition
planning, & family engagement
• LT Discussion Log
• Evaluation WG Notes
• Analysis of research
findings and psycho-
metrics of instrument
5.2: Review & adopt
intervention fidelity
instrument for PD on ELOs,
transition planning, and
family engagement
• Fidelity of intervention
instruments for ELOs, transition
planning, & family engagement
• LT Discussion Log
• Evaluation WG Notes
• Analysis of research
findings and psycho-
metrics of instrument
5.3: Review and adopt other • Implementation/intervention • Analysis of research
Draft (August 28, 2012)
89
implementation or
intervention fidelity
instruments as required
instruments
• LT Discussion Log
• Evaluation WG Notes
findings and psycho-
metrics of instrument
5.4: Train coaches and
partners on use of fidelity
instruments
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/qu
ali-tative analysis of
training & PD Log data
5.5: Develop data
management system for
tracking implementation and
intervention fidelity, and
other process data
• Data management system • Review by E-WG and
LT
5.6: Develop & implement
training & coaching
evaluation forms (using
pre/post items)
• Evaluation materials • Review by E-WG and
LT
5.7: Evaluation WG meets bi-
monthly to review
performance assessment
component
• Evaluation WG Decision
Log
• Review of E-WG
Decision Log
5.8: Evaluation data shared
quarterly with LT
• LT Decision Log • Review of LT Decision
Log
5.9: Collect on transition
outcome data
• SPP APR Indicator 1, 2, 8,
13, & 14 data
• Triangulation of
descriptive, correlational
Draft (August 28, 2012)
90
• LEA & school level data
(Family engagement, TOPS, etc.)
and qualitative data
Tale 21: Objective 6: To ensure administrators are trained to support their staff to
implement ELOs, evidence-based transition planning, and parent engagement strategies.
Facilitative Administrative
Support/Systems Intervention
Driver Performance Activities
Data Sources Analysis/Method
6.1: Provide PD for LEA & school
administrators on how to support
ELO use
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of training
& PD Log data
6.2: Provide PD for LEA & school
administrators on how to support
EB transition planning strategies
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of training
& PD Log data
6.3: Provide PD for LEA & school
administrators on how to support
EB family engagement strategies
• Training evals
• PD Log
• Frequency/descriptive/
qualitative analysis of training
& PD Log data
6.4: All training materials will be
posted on TRP
• TRP & training
materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
Tale 22: Objective 7: To enhance the inclusion of evidence-based training materials on
ELOs, transition planning, and parent/family engagement in IHE pre-service training
programs to sustain delivery of grant services throughout the state.
Sustaining Activities Data Sources Analysis/Method 7.1: Develop and conduct a • Copy of needs • E-WG & LT review of
Draft (August 28, 2012)
91
needs assessment of NH IHE
teacher preparation programs
assessment results documents
7.2: Recruit 1 IHE through a
competitive RFP process based
on need, data, and commitment
• IHE recruitment &
commitment materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
7.3: Develop materials & require-
ments for review process &
documentation of syllabi changes
• IHE rubric for review
process
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
7.4: Review current TRP at KSC
and revamp to be a transition
portal that will include family,
educator, and other resources
• TRP analysis and
plans for any changes
• LT review of findings and
plans
7.5: Post all training, coaching,
assessment, & resource
materials on TRP
• TRP & training
materials
• E-WG & LT review of
documents
7.6: Train & coach regional
intermediaries trainers in how to
use TRP for their regional PD
• Training evals
• Frequency/descriptive/quali-
tative analysis of training data
7.7: Track TRP usage data • Number hits
• Time spent on TRP
pages
• KSC & E-WG review of web
data longitudinally
Draft (August 28, 2012)
92
(ii): The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness
of project implementation strategies.
We have proposed multiple measures for assessing the effectiveness of project
implementation strategies. These instruments, with the same implementation process, will be
used in all states evaluated by EEC and PIRE, allowing for a greater sample to test, refine, and
validate instruments. These include instruments developed by SISEP to (1) assess stages of
implementation and (2) evaluate the degree to which the implementation drivers are in use (see
Appendix A). These established instruments will be used in conjunction with project specific
implementation (PD) and intervention (evidence-based practice) fidelity measures, identified in
the project logic models in Appendix A and the evaluation tables on pages 84 - 91of this section
to determine the effectiveness of NH SPDG PD. Existing fidelity instruments will be used when
available (ELO, TOPS, etc.). Otherwise, we will use the practice profile method for developing
and testing fidelity instruments for demonstrating the effectiveness of project implementation
activities.
We will use SISEP’s stage-based assessments of implementation instruments (see Appendix
A) to determine the stage of implementation for each initiative. Depending on the stage, it is
likely different implementation drivers will be emphasized and need to be measured. The SISEP
state-based instruments provide the necessary data to inform management decisions related to
implementation.
Table 23: Stage of Implementation Assessments Stage Assessments
Exploration Assessment of Implementation Stages & ImpleMap
Installation Installation Stage Assessment & Action Planning Guide
Initial Implementation Initial Implementation Comp. Assessment & Action Planning Guide
Draft (August 28, 2012)
93
Full Implementation Full Implementation Component Assessment & Implementation Tracker
Supporting the assessment of implementation stages, we will use the SISEP implementation
drivers’ instruments (see Appendix A) to gauge the implementation of the specific staff
competency, organizational, and leadership drivers for the NH SPDG. Utilizing the PIP/PEP
cycle, data from these instruments will be reviewed quarterly by the NH SPDG LT to inform
ongoing SPDG policy. Decisions made as a result of the policy review will be shared with all
project partners.
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective
performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project
and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible.
As required, we will report on the OSEP Program/GPRA performance measures (PM) on an
annual basis. Data from these indicators will be used to inform federal officials, as well as NH
DOE staff, and project management. As we do not have a formal teacher recruitment/retention
goal, we will not report on PM 4.
Performance Measure 1: Much of the reporting for PM 1 relates to documentation of evidence-
based professional development, such as LEA commitment forms, training process agendas and
pre/post assessments, coaching materials and protocols, etc. Data related to growth in teachers
knowledge and skills, as well as fidelity of implementation data collected via training and
coaching protocols will be provided. A mixed set of qualitative and quantitative data will be
provided to assess the quality of PD. Our expectation is by Year 2, we will score a minimum of a
‘3’ on the ‘4’ point scale used in the SPDG PM 1 Rubric, indicating consistent use of evidence-
based professional development practices.
Draft (August 28, 2012)
94
Performance Measure 2: PM 2 focuses on the fidelity of intervention of desired practices. As
much of the PD will be determined and provided based on LEA need, it is difficult to state
specific instruments. There is an existing ELO fidelity of implementation checklist (see
Appendix A). For transition planning, it is expected most LEAs will use TOPS or the Kohler
Transition Taxonomy, both of which have existing instruments for assessing fidelity of
implementation. In cases where we do need to develop fidelity protocols, we will use the practice
profile process to identify the critical components of each practice. For each critical component,
we will identify the gold standard for implementation, acceptable variations in the practice, and
ineffective practices and undesirable practices. As many of our fidelity measures will be self-
report, we will build in an observation component for 20% of the LEAs/schools for which we
report fidelity data. The observations will be conducted by regional coaches and LT members.
Performance Measure 3: To report on the cost/benefit performance measure, we will track the
use of sustained PD activities through an online tracking log, known as the PD Log. This has
been used in NH’s current SPDG (and in other states our evaluators work in) to collect data on
the type, amount, and audience of PD. Through this database, we can determine the percentage
of staff time spent on sustained PD activities, such as coaching. Travel and other costs will be
tracked to determine other costs impacting this performance measure.
As our actual project-level performance indicators need to be developed in a collaborative
manner with the specific contents experts, it is not possible to state what our exact indicators will
be. However, below we have presented a number of potential indicators for each project
objective. Objectives are structured the same for each goal, so we will be able to aggregate data
across initiatives and report for the entire project. To be most useful, some of the indicators
reflect short-term outcomes and some are reflective of intermediate outcomes.
Draft (August 28, 2012)
95
Objective 1 (Selection Driver): (1) All regional PD intermediaries have trained transition PD
providers working with LEAs. (2) Each region has recruited a minimum of one LEA each year
that has committed to full participation in project activities. (3) Each LEA has established a
transition PD plan to guide SPDG work.
Objectives 2 & 3 (Training Driver): (1) Annually, 75% of training workshops will result in
statistically significant increases on workshop pre/post evaluations. (2) On the annual PPS, 75%
of PD participants will report that the PD they had a large to very large impact on their
knowledge and skills of ELOs and evidence-based transition practices.
Objective 4 (Coaching Driver): Six months after training, participants will implement the
desired intervention/practice with 90% fidelity, as measured by a SPDG coach on the SPDG
coaching/implementation fidelity protocol.
Objective 5 (Performance Assessment Driver): 75% of participating schools score 80% or
higher on specific initiative intervention fidelity protocols, after two years of full implementation
of the intervention.
Objective 6 (Facilitative Administrative Supports Driver): On the annual PPS, 75% of
administrators in participating LEAS will report that the PD they received had a large to very
large impact on their knowledge and skills of supporting and sustaining the implementation of
ELOs and evidence-based transition practices.
Objective 7 (Sustainability): (1) Two additional NH IHEs show a greater integration of
evidence-based transition practices and ELOs into their course syllabi. (2) Teachers graduating
from NH’s teacher preparation programs report their pre-service training provided them with
sufficient knowledge on evidence-based transition practices and ELOs to inform their teaching.
Draft (August 28, 2012)
96
(iv): The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit
periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
While tracking and monitoring activity completion is an important component of evaluation,
we feel that evaluation data are best used as decision-making tools to guide us in implementing
these exciting new initiatives. We intend to use a learning orientation approach to evaluation
(McLaughlin, 2001) focusing on:
• What factors in our initiatives are influencing emerging outcomes and in what ways?
• What factors in our initiatives are influencing final outcomes and in what ways?
• What factors in the context or implementation environment of our initiatives may have
influenced success – positively or negatively?
• What unintended effects are occurring or have occurred?
In conjunction with a learning approach to evaluation, we believe it is important for project
evaluators to be an active part of project management (Perry, Thomas, DuBois, & McGowan,
2006). While in contrast to the more traditional view that evaluators must remain distant and
purely objective, the field is now beginning to realize the importance of an inclusive model for
evaluation. We expect to capitalize on the expertise of our evaluators by (1) learning more about
how to use and incorporate data into our work and (2) informing our policy decisions with the
best quality data available (Grob, 2006).
In order to benefit from a learning orientation approach to evaluation, however, it is essential
to have high quality data that are available in a timely manner. Bernhardt (1998) stressed that
comprehensive school-wide improvement activities are dependent on data that address the
interactions among and between stakeholders, stakeholder perceptions, the actual intervention,
and the results. Guskey (2000) stressed the importance of measuring the impact of professional
development on student learning. These processes and impacts are illustrated in the NH SPDG
Draft (August 28, 2012)
97
logic model. The model is designed to demonstrate the causal linkages between project
objectives, the organizations and individuals working together to achieve this goal, and the short-
term, intermediate, and long-term outcomes associated with each initiative.
Our intent is to ensure that policy enables practice and practice informs policy. To do this,
the external evaluator will submit quarterly reports to project management, documenting the
amount and type of professional development provided, as well as incorporating any available
ongoing performance feedback. These reports will be based on feedback from formal trainings
and coaching opportunities; surveys/interviews with teachers, administrators, families, IHE
faculty, NH DOE personnel; and informal data collection opportunities. The quarterly reports
will be aggregated to form the basis of the Annual Performance Reports (APR) required by the
U.S. Department of Education. Annual reports will summarize the formative data from
throughout the year and provide annual summative and cumulative data.